With
sharp words of rebuke against the political West, the great Russian
president commenced this year's Victory Day military
parade in Moscow. The Russian nation marked the 70th anniversary of Nazi
Germany's defeat the only way it knows how, in epic fashion. Besides
the massive formations of troops and the weaponry that normally get
displayed on Victory Day, some new and revolutionary weapons systems
were displayed for the very first time as well. The
massive military parade, the largest of its kind since the Second
World War, was an opportunity for the Russian Bear to publicly flex
its muscles - for friends and foes alike. But the most powerful and the most poignant moment in my opinion was when Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu made the sign of the cross at the start of the military parade. All in all, it was a very impressive show of force. The following are video links
to the day's momentous events. Please make some time to watch them if
you haven't done so -

Victory Day celebrations in Moscow, much like the recent centennial
commemorations
of the Armenian Genocide in Yerevan, was also an opportunity to see who
stood with
and who stood against the Russian nation. It was therefore not a
surprise that Western powers and their minions
were not present in Moscow on May 9th.

Five years ago Western powers reluctantly partook in the 65th anniversary
of the same parade. After the Western defeat in Georgia in 2008,
Washington, led by a new administration that had presented itself as
peace-oriented, had embarked on a campaign of rapprochement with Moscow.
Washington's reset in relations
was essentially meant to keep a Russia that had grown increasingly defensive due to
Western inroads into former Soviet territory engaged with Western
powers. The Western effort needless-to-say proved very short-lived
essentially because it was not genuine.While Western
officials were publicly speaking about cooperation and partnerships,
they were privately plotting ways to undermine Russia's growing stature
in international politics. Anglo-American-Jewish officials were in
fact plotting ways of pulling Ukraine out of Russia's orbit as a last ditch
effort to sabotage Moscow's fledgling Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) as well
as to permanently sour Russia's increasingly good relations with
European nations.

Simply put: Western powers could not sit back and allow Russia to become a major competitor and a global power.

The
fear and disdain many European nations feel towards Russia is not new.
Let's recall that every time Russian power or influence
has been on the rise, European powers - be it the Vatican, Sweden,
Poland, Germany, France, Britain, or more recently the United States -
have plotted against it. We saw this throughout the middle ages; we saw
this during the Napoleonic wars; we saw this during the Crimean war; we
saw this during the First World War; we saw this during the Bolshevik
revolution in Russia; we saw this during the Second World
War; we saw this during the Cold War; and we have been seeing this
during post-Soviet years. For the past twenty-five years Western
powers have been diligently working on containing, isolating and/or
fragmenting the Russian nation with hopes of turning it into yet
another failed state or Western dependency. They have pursued their
agenda against
Russia by: using proxies in the Middle East and Central Asia to support
the Islamic insurgency in southern Russia; expanding NATO and EU into
eastern Europe and into former Soviet territory; setting-up anti-missile
installations around Russia's periphery; using global media levers to
disseminate anti-Russian propaganda. More recently, they have begun
using economic/financial warfare to bring Russia to its knees.

After Moscow's unexpectedly
harsh reaction to the Western sponsored armed coup that took place in
Kiev
during the winder of 2013/2014, Western powers more-or-less ended their
charade: All pretenses were dropped and diplomatic niceties were
shelved. As we saw by their despicable coverage of the Winter Olympics in Sochi, it was to be a very ugly and persistent onslaught against the
Russian Federation and President Putin. After coming to the conclusion
that Russian power and influence around the world is on the rise - and
that they will not be able to stop it by conventional means - Western powers have taken on an
overtly hostile posture that is multi-pronged and relentless.

Uncle
Sam's most recent move against FIFA is basically the continuation of
the Western world's effort to subdue - or
punish - the Russian nation. The recent move against FIFA is absolutely an act directed
specifically against Russia.

We
all know that "corruption" of all forms is endemic in all governmental bodies, major
corporations
and organizations worldwide. In fact, the world's most criminally
corrupt entities comfortably reside in places such as Washington, New
York, Brussels and London. Therefore, when it comes to "corruption" FIFA is no
exception. Moreover, it should also be pointed out that wrongdoings in
FIFA has been well known and it has been known for decades.
Which begs the question: Why did Uncle Sam suddenly decide to
target FIFA now? The answer: To sabotage the upcoming 2018 World Cup
games scheduled to be held in Russia. Therefore, instead of moving against
egregious corruption and criminality that regularly takes place in Wall
Street and in Washington, the self-appointed policeman of the world is courageously going
after FIFA officials - to punish Russia.

There is another aspect to
this that not many people are noticing: Ok, I admit that FIFA is corrupt-to-the-core and needs a good shakeup. But by Uncle Sam? Is Washington's move against FIFA a
lawful act? Is forcing or blackmailing Swiss authorities to arrest FIFA
officials legal from the perspective of international law? Should Uncle Sam be playing the role of globocop?

As we can see now, while
Moscow was flexing its muscles on May 9th, US officials were busy
preparing to flex their muscles on May 27th. Make no mistake about it,
the action against FIFA is indeed muscle flexing by Uncle Sam. US
officials want the world to know that US power and influence has a very far reach. US officials want the world to know that US
officials can bring charges against people and have them arrested, even
if those targeted are foreign citizens and reside thousands of miles
away. No one is raising an eyebrow at any of this essentially because
Washington has for decades been using its power and influence to impose
its will
on sovereign nations worldwide. Uncle Sam acts like the alpha and the
omega of the universe and sheeple are conditioned to simply accept it as
the natural order of things. In my opinion, Washington's actions
against FIFA is a blatant act of
aggression and yet another example of American
imperial hubris. The degree of meddling in the domestic affairs of
sovereign nations by US officials is unprecedented in human history. The
recent ordeal involving FIFA should therefore be a reminder to us all
that the US government has become an out-of-control monster that needs to be reigned in.

As
I have alluded to on countless previous occasions: For
the past seventy years they have meticulously and systematically set-up
the playing field, as well as the rules of the game. Regardless of who
you are, if you want to play, you have to play on their turf and under
their terms. They have you already speaking their language, using their
financial institutions, trading in their currency, studying in their
educational establishments, listening to their news, wearing their
clothes, entertaining yourself to their pop culture... They already have you
conditioned. Once you are operating within their system and living
within their paradigm, they control you. You are therefore vulnerable. You are
thus forced to play the game obediently, or else. In short: We live in their world. They see the world as their playground and they see us as their possessions.

Never
before had any political entity had this much power and influence over
human society. The situation at hand is unnatural, very dangerous and therefore must be ended. And
one of the scariest aspects to Uncle Sam's recent move against FIFA is that
the action was made possible by "antiterrorism" legislation Washington
has signed with various nations in recent years.
Again, we are seeing the events of September 11, 2001 being exploited
for imperial interests of the Anglo-American-Jewish political order. Make no mistake about it: US
has become a global threat, an arrogant monster who's tentacles now
reach into the far corners of the world. President Putin spoke out about this -

Humanity
has a desperate need for another power - or powers - to rise and have
the courage and the foresight to begin setting-up other fields of play
with new sets of rules.

Russia is perhaps the only power on earth that is capable of eventually organizing successful opposition against the political West, which is why Anglo-American-Jewish powers are working
day and night to stop Russia's rise. Therefore,
it was only natural that the Anglo-American-Jewish political order and
its lackeys around the world would stay away from Victory Day
celebrations in Moscow.
But those that were present in Moscow on May 9th do suggest some
fundamental changes in global affairs. The world's two most populous
nations, China and India, and the world's largest nation, Russia, have in recent years grown very close. Looking at the spectator's
bleachers on Red Square one could in my opinion see the fledgling face of a newly emerging global order. Russian, Chinese
and Indian troops marching together for the first time on the historic cobblestone pavement of Red Square heralds the dawning of a new political order.The East is rising despite the West's best efforts to curtail its rise.

Also seen marching for the first time in Moscow were Serbian troops.
It was wonderful seeing the Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic in both
Yerevan and Moscow in recent weeks. There is no doubt that the great Serbian nation is looking
east. The Russian sphere is where the Serbian nation naturally belongs
within and it is where Serbia - along with Kosovo - will eventually be
returned to. Other notable guests in Moscow during the Victory Day celebrations were Egypt's
President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi and Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades.
In
my opinion, the only nations that were unfortunately not
adequately present in
Moscow on May 9th were the still occupied nation of Germany, bankrupted
Greece and the embattled state of Iran. I really hope to see Germany,
Greece and Iran get their act in order and begin closely cooperating with Russia.

Since
we are on the topic of Victory Day celebrations, I would like to add
that the victory over Nazi Germany was not just a Russian victory but
also a victory of Soviet peoples.

Armenia, a nation of barely over a
million
people at the time, lost nearly three hundred thousand of its sons and
daughters in the war effort. Over one hundred Armenians were awarded
the title of "Hero of the Soviet Union", the highest military honor
bestowed by the Kremlin. Over sixty Armenian generals served in the Soviet military during the war. Armenian 89th Tamanyan tank division was one of the finest Soviet tank divisions of the
war, and it was also amongst the very first military units to fight its
way into
Berlin in spring of 1945.
Hovannes
Bagramyan was the first non-Slavic officer to be given the title of
Marshal, as well as being the first non-Slavic officer to be given
command of an entire
front. Two other Armenians, Hamazasp Babadzhanian and Sergei Khudyakov also became Marshals during the war. Ivan Isakov was the second Admiral of the Soviet navy. Aeronautical engineer Artem Mikoyan first began designing his
world famous "Mig" warplanes during the war. One of the Soviet Union's top combat pilots of the war was Nelson Stepanyan. Finally, we must
never forget Gevork Vartanian, the legendary
Soviet-Armenian agent who single-handedly thwarted the assassinations of
Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in 1943. Gevork
Vartanyan's exploit in Iran most probably prevented the collapse of the allied war effort. Despite
its size and obscurity, the Armenian nation contributed greatly to the
final Soviet victory. Armenians in fact gave more to the allied war effort than
they could afford to give. This is why May
9th is also a major holiday inside Armenia. May 9th is actually a
double holiday for Armenians worldwide for also on that date in 1992 the
historic Armenian city of Shushi was finally liberated by Armenian
forces. The liberation of Shushi on May 9, 1992 became the turning-point
of the war in
Artsakh.

Nevertheless,
the Victory Day military parade in Moscow showed the world
that the Russian Federation will not be subdued. The military
parade showed the Anglo-American-Jewish political order that their
efforts - be it financial, political or military - have failed to deter
Moscow from pursing its interests. The military parade showed the world
that Western aggression is pushing Russia and China ever closer. In my
opinion, the military parade also sent a
clear signal to all that Russia is not afraid of Western powers and
that it will continue backing pro-Russian separatists in
Novorossiya.

Featured below this commentary is comrade Zoravar's latest blog contribution titled: The Battle for Novorossiya.

Zoravar's work is essentially composed of two parts: A fascinating narrative
about the historic
struggle taking place within Novorossiya and an expert's assessment of
the military
hardware displayed during Moscow's Victory Day military parade on May 9th. I urge
all my readers to make time and read his lucid work. For added perspective, I also urge you to please read his previous blog contributions listed below as well -

I thank Zoravar for bringing our attention back to Novorossiya. Of
all the global hotspots in the world today the war in Ukraine is the most
significant one from a geostrategic perspective. If the
Russian nation is to reach its potential in the 21th century, it will
have to thwart the Anglo-American-Jewish onslaught against it. In my opinion, the best place to do this is in Novorossiya.
Ukraine has become the battlefield where NATO and the EU can be dealt a
major blow. Ukraine is the battlefield where the Anglo-American-Jewish
political order can be exposed and defeated. Novorossiya has thus become the gateway to greater Russian power and influence in Europe and Turkey. Greater Russian power and influence
in the region in-turn gives hope to beleaguered nations like Serbia, Greece, Macedonia, Transnistria,
South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Cyprus, Syria, Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. The outcome of the war in Ukraine will shape the future
of the entire region. The strategic and historic
importance of the war in Novorossiya cannot therefore be overemphasized.

Arevordi

May, 2015

***

The Battle for Novorossiya

Prologue

The
moonlight revealed a dozen or so human silhouettes moving frantically
around a few trucks parked abreast of each other on a sunflower field
caressed by a mild and refreshing mid-summer breeze. In an atmosphere
that sounded very tense, the men were moving around haphazardly. Their
pace was often quick. Sometimes they paused only to hurry again.
Although there was no one for miles, they were speaking to each other in
whispers. Clearly they were up to something important and they did not
want to be seen or heard.

Momentarily, a better glimpse was
obtained when one group member used a flashlight to read from a sheet of
paper some numbers that sounded like coordinates …

This was
happening in the Donbass region of Ukraine. The field was not an
ordinary field, it had rich and fertile (chernozyom) topsoil and coal
mines buried deep under. The men were no ordinary farmers or miners,
they were rebel militants fighting for a free Novorossiya. The trucks
were no ordinary trucks, they were “Grad” multiple rocket launchers of
legendary fame. The date was in the summer of 2014, but it was a déjà vu
scene; similar scenarios happened in the same place many decades ago
during the period of history that the locals refer to as the “Great
Patriotic War”.

Suddenly, the readiness reports coming from the vehicles successively pierced the dark night:

It
was the moment the battery commander was waiting for. With slow
movements of his right hand he crossed himself in the traditional
Russian Orthodox manner, took a deep breath and yelled as loud as his
lungs could master:

The “fire” command was given in the traditional Russian manner, but the
last “three” was never heard because the first rockets had already
left their launch tubes and were screeching their way towards the
unsuspecting Ukrainian troops camped near the village of Zelenopolye…

Disaster in Kiev

By
February 2014, with the full support and backing of the political West,
a group of Ukrainian Russophobe oligarchs and ultra-nationalists had
organized and successfully executed a “Maidan” revolution in Kiev which
resulted in the overthrow of the democratically elected but weak and
indecisive president Viktor Yanukovich. The authority was now illegally
seized by people who hated everything Russian and were clearly stating
their sinister aims of joining NATO, disassociating Ukraine from
everything Russian and even banning the Russian language from school
programs.

Maidan Clashes

The
eastern and southern regions of Ukraine that are traditionally
pro-Russian were in such a state of shock that neither the people nor
the politicians knew how to act. The true colors of Yanukovich’s own
Party of Regions started showing off when many of its members were just
easily “bought” by the other side…Suddenly, there was no political party
or entity that could fight back the “Maidan” revolution.

Dawn of the “Russian Spring”

With
no political party and no leadership to look to, the millions of
Russian speaking Ukrainians had a tough time trying to figure out what
to do. They are known to be the real workers and producers in Ukraine,
while their Western compatriots are more known for being lazy,
unproductive, jobless and poor. What were the Pro-Russians supposed to
do? Leave their jobs, families, responsibilities and fight back? Or just
let it be?

Someone had to take the lead… Crimeans decided to
act, and they acted very effectively. Prompt and massive demonstrations
started a rapid chain of events that started in electing much needed
leadership and culminated by the return of the whole peninsula to Mother
Russia. These events were covered on this blog in the past.

The
population of the South East did not stay idle. Energized by the success
of their compatriots in Crimea, they took to the streets in Donetsk,
Lugansk, Kharkov, Odessa and in every other major city in those regions.
Their mass demonstrations dwarfed the pro-Ukraine or pro-West
gatherings in those areas and gathered momentum every passing week.
However, these self-organized demonstrations lacked proper leadership
and had diverging aims: some were asking for reunification with Russia,
others were demanding federalization, yet others were just content on
asking just for freedom of Russian language. The whole thing was a
recipe for failure…

Anti-Maidan demonstrations

Dilemma in the Kremlin

The Maidan freak show happened at a time when the Russian leadership was busy making sure that the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi end up being a tremendous success that would have enormous positive effect on the average Ivan’s and Natasha’s national pride, feelings and psychology. Despite the successes of the Russian sportsmen and women, the Kremlin was keeping a worried eye on the developments in Kiev and was of course appalled by the brutality of the fascist and Nazi rioters, the swiftness of the events and the ineffectiveness of the Ukrainian President. Although they understood the gravity of the situation that was arising, the turn of the events in Kiev caught the Kremlin leaders off balance. Certainly, Vladimir Putin and his close associates in the government contemplated their options which can be summarized as follows:

-Staying in friendly terms with the new regime in Kiev by doing nothing on the ground: But Moscow knew too well the Maidan coup initiators who were coming to power. Nothing good would come out by trying to deal with these Russophobes in a friendly and respectful manner.

-Military intervention and restoration of President Yanukovich into power: That would not only lead to a full-fledged cold war with the West, but it could also get Russia involved in a protracted and very costly Iraq-style insurgency war that it could ill afford. Furthermore, it would mean that Russia would have to support and sustain the “bottomless barrel” called Ukrainian economy. That would set Russia decades behind.

-Disrupting Kiev’s (and the West’s) plans and maintaining leverage: Russia is ruled by consensus, not by an iron fist (as the West likes to portray it). There are various factions in the Kremlin ranging from the siloviki to the liberals and from the nationalists to the business-minded. Putin is like a father/patriarch figure who listens to all the opinions and has to find the right consensus. It was this third option that the Russian leadership opted for as it was flexible enough to lead to maximum gains while minimizing costs and losses. It could potentially deny Kiev the liberty to do as it pleased by maintaining as much as possible leverage that Russia has in cultural, financial and trade terms. In other words, Moscow decided to accept the defeat it sustained in Kiev, but positioned itself in such a way to extract a few victories out of the monster’s jaws.

The first two immediate decisions were to send an airborne team to rescue the beleaguered president Yanukovich and to do whatever was necessary to ensure that the Crimean peninsula returns to Russia. As we know, both of these aims were successfully executed to the dismay of Kiev regime and the West. With these immediate objectives achieved, the Kiev regime was dealt a couple of heavy punches. It was time to let diplomacy, the business ties, the declining economy and the general discontent in the south-east to do the rest: make sure that Ukraine does not join NATO and/or the EU…at least, that was the idea. That plan was pushed forward by the Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov on the diplomatic front as “federalization of Ukraine”.

Washington (and the political West) would have none of that. Watching their easy victory in Kiev not only come to nothing but also to cost the West dearly in financial support of the “free and democratic” Ukraine, the West’s leaders decided not to let “Putin” have his way. At that point, they started to aggressively push their plans to integrate Ukraine into NATO and the EU.

The Strelkovtsev

On the 3rd of March 2014, Dmitry Zhukov disembarked from a crowded bus in Simferopol (Crimea). His friends knew him by the call sign “Kedr”. As an anti-Maidan activist from Kiev, he had worked hard to fight back the coup in his native city. By the end of February, he realized that the battle was lost and that it was not safe to stay in the capital. He decided to move to Crimea and continue the struggle from there. The passengers on the bus were activists like him and also a few “Berkut” riot police officers fleeing Kiev. The Crimean greeted the new comers with applauses and chants of “Berkut – Berkut” and “Spa-si-ba, Spa-si-ba”. In that crowded and noisy square, Kedr barely heard someone calling his name. He turned to his right and instantly identified a middle aged tall man with a thin mustache dressed in a suit and tie. That man was a contact he was given, it was Igor Strelkov.

The Strelkovtsev

Little
is known about Igor Vsevolodovich Girkin (Strelkov). It is believed
that he worked for the Russian FSB for a number of years. He had
participated in a number of wars were Russia’s geopolitical interests
were involved: Transdniestra, Bosnia and the two conflicts in Chechnya.
For the last couple of years he was living a more “civilian” life
dedicating himself to re-enacting famous historic battles. During the
early stages of the turmoil in Ukraine, he relocated to the Crimean
peninsula were he took part in the events that happened there. It is
said that he was managing the personal security of some key Crimean
leaders.

Strelkov predicted that the peaceful anti-Kiev
demonstration would lead to nowhere. The events that happened in the
next few weeks proved he was right. Several thousand neo-Nazi Right
Sector and ultra-nationalist Svoboda party thugs sent by Kiev crushed
the Odessa movement and burned dozens of unarmed demonstrators in the
Trade Union building. Soon after, the same thugs were sent to Kharkov to
beat the protesters there. The unarmed and peaceful anti-Kiev movements
were fizzling out. Only Donetsk and Lugansk were still active where the
local populations had captured some local administration buildings and
thus far had managed to beat back the Kiev Junta’s thugs. But it was
doubtful they could hold their stand for much longer.

The
conversation between Strelkov and Kedr was brief and to the point. It
was all about defending the “Russian World” to which Kedr volunteered.
They knew that the peaceful anti-Kiev demonstrations all over the
South-East were doomed to fail. The new rulers in Kiev and their backers
in the West were not interested in public opinion and fairness. They
wanted to encroach further into the Russian zone of influence. They
wanted a Ukraine that was anti-Russia. They wanted brother Slavic people
to be at each other’s throats.

Capture of Kramatorsk Police Station

A
few weeks later, a group of 52 men led by Strelkov crossed the border
in a number of civilian vehicles and proceeded to the now famous city of
Slavyansk in the Donetsk region of Ukraine. A few of them were Russian
citizens (like Strelkov himself). There were also a number of Crimeans,
but the majority were Ukrainians including a few from Kiev (like Kedr)
and other western regions of the country. They all had served in the
military, some had battle experience. Slavyansk was chosen for a variety
of reasons:-They had many contacts in Slavyansk who could join them there immediately.-Strelkov
wanted a medium sized city (population 100,000) that was sympathetic to
the Russian cause and deeply anti-Kiev. A city, were rule of the people
could be easily and quickly established.

-Slavyansk is located on the western side of the Donetsk region and thus, is ideal because it would be barrier that would shield the Donetsk capital until it organized itself for the confrontation with Kiev.

Strelkov and his men were armed with light weapons, they had personal radios for communication and were wearing fresh uniforms. They looked very professional. Upon their covert arrival in Slavyansk, the Strelkovtsev were met by their contacts who boosted their ranks and soon went into action. On the 12th of April, they captured the local police station and the Ukrainian security building. The overjoyed civilian population helped in erecting barricades at the city entrances. A new mayor was designated and almost overnight Slavyansk became the focus of the clash against the Kiev junta. Fresh local volunteers were armed with the weapons confiscated from the police building and Strelkov was now in command of a force that had quadrupled in numbers. A few days later, he sent a group of 28 Terek and Don Cossacks to capture the neighboring city of Kramatorsk to the great delight of the local population there. One very charismatic and photogenic Cossack warrior by the call sign “Babai” became so popular that many people lined up to be photographed with him.

At this stage, I invite all the esteemed readers of this article to watch the following clip about Babai and his colleagues in Slavyansk and Kramatorsk. Us Armenians, we call this kind of brave people “Fedayees”. The song in the clip is the famous Cossack song “Kagda My Bili Na Vayne” (“When We Were at War”).

The popular seizure of Slavyansk and Kramatorsk energized the Donbass masses who seized virtually every administration in every city and town in the two Oblasts of Donetsk and Lugansk. They were no longer afraid, they had seen the successful events in Crimea, they now had weapons they had seized from various police stations and Ukrainian state security offices and most of all they had the Strelkovtsev. The reaction to the violent Maidan coup in Kiev had begun. Anti-Maidan was brought into the geopolitical and military equation. Anti-Maidan can be seen as an anti-poison that stops the spreading of the venom through Ukraine’s body. But, let’s go back and analyze this whole Strelkov expedition for a moment. Who was backing and financing them? According to Strelkov himself, the Kremlin neither sent them nor supported them. They had to buy their arms and equipment themselves. Could that be true? Let’s contemplate all the possibilities:

- One distinct possibility is that the Kremlin directly (or through intermediaries) provided Strelkov with his orders, finances and weapons. The Kiev Junta and the West accuses Russia of doing exactly that. Naturally, Russia denies the accusations. If it is indeed true that the Kremlin is managing Strelkov, then this is one of the most audacious large-scale covert operation conducted in recent times; something that modern Russia has never done since the break-up of the Soviet Union.

-Another possibility is that it was some hawkish circles within the Kremlin who sent Strelkov there without the approval of Putin or the government. It would be absurd to think that the FSB or the government did not know about it. They just turned a blind eye or looked the other way. If the operation succeeded, it would be a “win” for Russia. If it failed, they had plausible deniability and could even blame some scapegoat. Remember the saying: “Victory has a hundred fathers, defeat is an orphan”.

-The third possibility is that an opposition party (such as Zhirinovsky’s LDP or the Communists) or a nationalistic party supported Strelkov with or without the knowledge of the Kremlin. Again, a successful mission would be a “win”. If it failed, it was somebody else’s enterprise.

-Finally, the most unlikely but still plausible scenario is that Strelkov and his men acted on their own. Strelkov is a devout Monarchist; a movement that is lately on the rise in Russia. Monarchists are very patriotic, nationalistic and believe that a Tsar should rule Russia. In all his interviews, Strelkov never lauded the Kremlin or President Putin. On the contrary, he often delivered veiled criticism aimed at the Russian leadership for not helping him and the Donbass fight the Kiev Junta.

Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer to which of the above possibilities is the correct one. Is Strelkov a 100% FSB agent or is he a ready to die “fedayee” who believed that his ideology was sufficient in leading Donbass to victory. I hope one day the truth will be made public and I certainly hope that I will live long enough to see that day.

First Battles for Novorossiya

Russian media revealed that on the 12th of April CIA chief john Brennan secretly visited Kiev to meet the then active president and parliament speaker Viktor Turchinov as well as Petro Poroshenko who had not been elected president yet. The Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO) was launched soon after his visit.

Defending Slavyansk

Continuously, the USA supplied the Kiev Junta with lumps of cash under the allegation that it was helping a “democracy and freedom loving brave country”. Each lump sum consisted of several dozen millions of Dollars that were not intended to support the Ukrainian economy or the population; rather they were to be used to prep up the armed forces that Kiev needed to subdue the rebelling Donbass region.

During the Maidan square coup, the underfunded and neglected Ukrainian Army did not take sides. The already low morale in the armed forces was dealt a severe blow when the majority of their contingents based in the Crimea sided with Russia; among them was the top Admiral of the Navy. By the end of the Crimea events, Russian military experts estimated that the Ukrainian Army had about only six thousand combat ready soldiers. The large sums that the USA was granting the Kiev junta were badly needed. Kiev started at the very top. The money was used to make sure that the top generals were on their side. Promotions, bribes and the rest made sure that loyalty trickled down to the lower ranking officers who had to prepare the army for the upcoming conflict i.e. the ATO mission in the Donbass. But that needed some time. Meanwhile the Strelkovtsev were getting entrenched in Slavyansk and the Donetsk and Lugansk regions were getting out of Kiev’s control. The Kiev junta had to send in whatever was available aginst Slavyansk and Kramatorsk.

Capture of Ukrainian Vehicles

At that time the junta’s military headquarters managed to get the 25th air mobile brigade move into Kramatorsk. That brigade, considered to be the elite of the Ukrainian Army, has its base in Dnepropetrovsk (a region of Russian speakers) and a large proportion of soldiers from that region. Their mission was to enter Kramatorsk and chase the Russian “terrorists”. The first column of BMD armored vehicles entered Kramatorsk and reached the city center. The weaponry of the Strelkovtsev consisted of only AK-74 assault rifles and other hand held light weapons. They had no chance against this force. Yet, that day was meant to be a day were miracles happen. The civilian population descended on the streets, surrounded the BMDs, talked to the soldiers, argued, yelled, pestered, badgered and eventually convinced them to give up the mission. Furthermore, six of BMDs defected and joined the rebellious population; the rest just left the city. The Russian speaking soldiers from Dnepropetrovsk had realized that it was their own kin, their own brothers and sisters that they were sent to fight and crush. It was a bloodless victory for the Strelkovtsev whose ranks swelled further and now had at its disposal some armored vehicles, heavy machine guns, anti-tank weapons and most of all their first artillery piece in the form of a BMD based NONA self-propelled gun-mortar.

First blood was drawn soon after when a group of ultra-nationalistic fanatics in four SUV vehicles approached a road block at one of the entrances of Slavyansk and opened fire killing 3 people. The defenders retaliated and burned two of the vehicles. Things got uglier with time. The junta’s attacks got stronger and more fearce. Attacks were mounted with armored personnel carriers, later on with tanks and eventually with artillery and aviation.

The Warlords of Novorossiya

The Russian Spring period witnessed the emergence of a number of self-defense units. Strelkov and his group got the most publicity, but they were not the only one. In Donetsk region, another Russian national by the name of Igor Bezler (Bez) created a unit in the city of Gorlovka. The Vostok battalion was assembled in the city of Donetsk itself and was led by Khodakovsky (a Ukrainian). The Oplot unit was led by Alexander Zakharchenko who later became the head of the DNR (Popular Republic of Donetsk). In the Lugansk region, the Cossacks established themselves in Pervomaysk and Alchevsk while Alexander Mozgovoy’s “Prizrak” battalion took up the defense of northern Lugansk. There were other self-organized groups as well, but the ones I mentioned are the most noteworthy. The number of fighters in these rebel groups varied from a few dozen to several hundred. Of course, the largest anti-Kiev fighting force was Strelkov’s group garrisoned in Slavyansk. At its peak, Strelkov commanded a group whose ranks were in excess of 2000 soldiers.

From top left: Mozgovoy, Bezler and Khodakovsky (bottom)

With most of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions now under the control of these various groups, the leaders of the two regions organized referendums on the 11th of May 2014 in which the population overwhelmingly supported self-determination for the two regions. Just like the population, the various rebel groups did not exactly share the same political views and had diverging plans. Also, cooperation with each other on the battlefield was lacking. The only thing that united them was the fascist regime in Kiev that was trying to subjugate them. Thus emerged two tendencies in the Donbass:

The first one consisted of the hardliners who wanted to take the battle all the way to Kiev and wanted to establish a new Republic (Novorossiya) that encompassed the entire Eastern and Southern parts of Ukraine. Strelkov and Mozgovoy were among them. The other rebel groups’ ambitions were less grandiose; they were more interested in establishing self-rule for their regions. They certainly rejected the Kiev Junta and considered themselves as a counter-revolution; they preferred to find a political solution rather than march onto Kiev. Zakharchenko was among those.

Novorossiya (in red)

Whether intentional or circumstantial, this divergence of view among the rebels worked very well for the Kremlin grossmeisters and their strategy in Ukraine. Depending on the situation, they could let things escalate or deescalate as they pleased by backing and supporting one or the other category of rebels. But, for the time being, the Western masters of the puppet regime in Kiev were in no mood for diplomacy or peaceful political solution to the Ukraine crisis. It was no longer a matter of getting Ukraine only, it was a matter of confronting, weakening and beating Russia in its own backyard. It was war time.

Voentorg and the Clipping of Wings

As the Ukrainian armed forces attacks on Slavyansk were getting fiercer every day, Strelkov and his men needed help which could come only from Russia. But how could the Kremlin send weapons there. Diplomatically, the Russians were denying any links with Strelkov and thus could not be caught helping him. Yet, Strelkov’s arsenal of weapons, ammunition and equipment was getting replenished more or less consistently. That phenomenon is known among Russian speakers as “Voentorg” which roughly translates into English as “Military Shopping”. The goods were getting smuggled into Slavyansk via bunches of volunteers and enthusiastic supporters. Many Russians contributed donations for the funds to purchase whatever was necessary to help the Strelkovtsev. A lot of stuff such as military style uniforms, boots, binoculars etc. can be purchased openly in the Russian market, but when it comes to arms… The way Strelkov was getting RPG rockets is “as clear is mud”. Suffice to say that all the weapons that were ending up in Slavyansk were also to be found with Ukrainian Army. Russia could not be incriminated, plausible deniability was always there. Officially the Russians always denied supplying arms to the rebels.

At first, when the Ukrainian army was ill prepared, Voentorg was providing the necessary light weapons, ammunition, uniforms, first aid kits and other stuff to keep the Ukrainians at bay. When tanks started being used, almost immediately anti-tank weapons showed up with the rebels. When artillery started pounding Slavyansk, Strelkov suddenly had in possession a few more mortars.

Ukrainian Aircraft shot down by Rebels

The most spectacular way the Ukrainians “upped the ante” against the rebels was when they used their air assets. Initially, it was the helicopter gunships that started causing serious trouble for the rebels. Miraculously, one after the other, they started falling from the sky like flies. Strelkov had received IGLA man portable air defense missiles (MANPADS). Consequently, the usage of helicopters seized. Instead, Su-25 ground attack aircraft that are less vulnerable to MANPADS began their notorious strikes inflicting ugly casualties on the militants as well as the civilian population. The cure for that problem was the big brother of the IGLA: The STRELA-10 vehicle mounted missile effectively neutralized the strafing runs of the planes. The Ukrainians now resorted to the faster flying SU-24 and MIG-29 fighter bombers to deliver high and fast strikes against the Donbass. Once again, the equal and opposite reaction was in the form of the radar guided short range (10 km) OSA missile complex that has the NATO codename SA-8. After losing a few more of their aircraft, Kiev stopped using its air force in the conflict. In February 2015, during the liberation of the city of Debaltsovo, the rebels had complete control of the air. No Ukrainian aircraft showed up to help the beleaguered Ukrainian troops on the ground. The once proud Ukrainian Air Force had its wings clipped; they themselves admit to the loss of 23 aircraft and helicopters during the conflict. Here is a list of aircraft lost in Ukraine over the period:http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?Country=UR&page=1

Retreat from Slavyansk

By the end of June, as the race for more power and supremacy on the battlefield continued and the losses on both sides were mounting, it slowly became clear that the rebels were not going to win this one. While Ukraine was mobilizing its entire population and reactivating its stored (Soviet era) weaponry, Strelkov realized that it could not keep up with it. Sure, his army in Slavyansk had swelled to 2000 soldiers and had some heavy equipment in the form of some tanks and other armored vehicles. But he was now getting surrounding by over 10,000 Ukrainian troops and hundreds of armor.

Furthermore, due to the murderous artillery shelling, the Slavyansk population was paying a heavy price. Many of them had already left and the prospects looked dim.

He fully realized that Slavyansk was shielding the capital and other population centers until they organized themselves well enough to fight back Kiev and win. But, he was not happy the way things were proceeding elsewhere in Novorossiya: too many warlords, too many heads, too much chaos. The much needed referendum and the battles around Slavyansk did not energize the Donbass population well enough: there simply were not enough volunteers taking up arms. It seemed that everybody wanted independence from Kiev but was not willing to fight for it. As if everybody hoped that Russian troops will come one day and do the hard job for them. While Slavyansk was burning, people were carrying on their daily routines in the other cities.

Eventually Slavyansk got completely surrounded and Strelkov had to choose to either fight to the death or to break through and retreat to Donetsk. For a variety of reasons, he chose the later and abandoned Slavyansk and Kramatorsk.

President Poroshenko in Slavyansk

In the first days of July, Strelkov ordered all his men and families to assemble and carried out his audacious breakthrough and succeeded in getting the vast majority of his men to the capital Donetsk.

Since Strelkov’s 2000 strong army dwarfed all the other rebel groups in Donetsk, he established himself as the chief warlord. He was already the Defense minister of the Republic and embarked on the immensely challenging task of getting together all the various rebel groups in expectation of the inevitable Ukrainian onslaught against what was left of Novorossiya that was free from Kiev’s control.

Naturally, Kiev wasted no time and sent its army to conquer and subdue all the remaining areas that it referred to as “separatist” and “terrorist”. While advancing towards the capitals of Donetsk and Lugansk, the junta’s tactic was to first severe Novorossiya from Russia by capturing the areas that border Donbass with Russia proper hence stopping the flow of any Russian volunteers and weapons. With their overwhelming superiority in men and equipment, the Ukrainians proceeded with the plan and were getting close to achieving complete control over the border thus surrounding Novorossiya. Simultaneously, they launched another attack aimed to sever Donetsk and Lugansk from each other. It was a last minute heroic engagement at Shakhtyorsk that kept the Donetsk-Lugansk route open for the rebels, but the situation was very dim and it seemed that the rebellion in the Donbass would end soon.

The God of War

The GRAD battery commander watched the last rockets blast through the night sky and, greatly relieved, thanked God for being able to carry out his mission as intended. Earlier, Rebel reconnaissance units and Russian Unmanned Aerial Vehicles had located the positions of the 72nd and 79th Ukrainian Brigades that were tasked to capture the last stretches of land that connected Novorossiya with Russia.

The battery commander with graying beard and an orange and black St. George ribbon around his left arm fully understood that this strike would be crucial for the history of the Donbass region. He had received his orders directly from top command. The Ukrainians were about to cut them out from Russia, surround them and crush them. If his mission failed, he and his men would probably end up dead. His family and friends would be at the mercy of bloodthirsty Russophobe sadists.

The salvo was right on target. It caught the sleeping Ukrainian troops by complete surprise. The rockets spread death and destruction to every corner of the camp. In a spread of a few tens of seconds, tents got vaporized, vehicles were torn to pieces, ammunition dumps blew up creating even more carnage, the whole place was burning. The following video shows in graphic detail the aftermath of the bombardment on the Ukrainian camp in Zelenopolye that night:

From that date on, the above scenario would get regularly repeated in various places in the Donbass region.

In 1944, Joseph Stalin had said in one of his speeches that the artillery was the “God of War”. Exactly 70 years later, his words couldn’t have been more correct. Throughout the summer months and until the Minsk agreements, artillery became the largest single cause of death in the Battle for Novorossiya. The Ukrainians used artillery against cities to kill civilians and destroy infrastructure. The rebels used their guns and rockets in a more professional manner: They relied on reliable reconnaissance and spotting information provided by recon units, spies, informers and UAVs (some of them Russian) and possibly even satellites to deliver accurate strikes against Ukrainian positions. Never in my life as a military enthusiast have I seen a war in which the artillery had such a disproportionate impact on the outcome of a war. “God of War” indeed.

Northern Wind

Right after Crimea’s unification and throughout the spring of 2014, the Kremlin adopted a “soft” approach by distancing itself from the rebels as much as possible, providing only the minimum amount of support as much indirectly as possible as discretely as possible. The Kremlin also stopped short of accepting the referendum results in Novorossiya. The Russian leadership tried its best to keep all diplomatic channels open.

What they received in return was sanctions, media war, demonization and the dispatch of US tanks right to Russia’s border. The West’s leaders were not interested in diplomacy; they were going in as hard as possible thus revealing their ultimate objectives. They wanted to militarily defeat Russia in its own backyard, decimate the Russian economy, weaken the Russian leadership and cause dissent and discord among the Russian population. They were in to defeat their arch enemy: Russia.

Once upon a while there were three sisters living in the Slavic house: Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Then, one day, the middle sister (Ukraine) went on the path of prostitution. She started accepting the West’s money… The big sister (Russia) could not accept that. So, she gently and softly tried to talk her out of it. The middle sister did not listen and became increasingly arrogant. That’s when the big sister decided to slap her.

Novorossiya getting cut-off by Ukrainian Forces

Novorossiya was on the verge of military defeat. That would mean that Russia would completely and forever lose Ukraine and have no leverage on this traditional Russian land. The birthplace of Russia (Kievian Rus) would become an anti-Russia entity. That sort of mortal defeat was deemed unacceptable by Putin and his colleagues. The West was crossing the red line. It was time for a slap on the face.

The destruction of the two Ukrainian brigades in Zelenopolye was just the beginning. The following days and weeks witnessed the systematic destruction of the Ukrainian armed forces in the Donbass. A massive counter attack had begun. Ukrainian troops that earlier had conquered most of the border areas now got surrounded, destroyed or pushed back all the way to the outskirts of the coastal city of Mariopol. During those days, countless numbers of pictures and videos revealed the massive destruction of the Ukrainian army in places ranging from Staraboshevo to Ambrovieska and from Saur-Mogila to Illovaisk. Later on, Ukraine’s president Poroshenko admitted that 65% of his army’s equipment was destroyed in the Donbass. Although he never admitted it, all sources believe that the death toll among Ukrainian servicemen was in the thousands.

The Kiev junta and their Western puppet masters accused Russia of using Russian troops. Naturally, the Russians and the rebels denied all those allegations despite the fact that some fancy new equipment showed up in Donbass during the counter offensive. Those could have come only from Russia. The most obvious ones were T-72 tanks of the B3 version, BTR-82 personnel carriers and MSTA-S self-propelled artillery.

Novorossiya at 1st Ceasefire

The “phenomenon” that sliced through the Ukrainian forces, changed the military balance on the front and made it clear to the whole world that Russia will not allow a defeat of Novorossiya is referred to as “Northern Wind”. The West’s plans were stopped in their tracks. It was time for diplomacy to work out a solution. This website compiles all the equipment losses in Ukraine during the conflict: http://lostarmour.info/. Anything that is not documented by a photo or video is not included in the lists. The Ukrainian material losses are massive.

The Kremlin Takes Control and Reshuffles

With Kiev beaten back, it was time for the Kremlin to make sure that the Novorossiya house was in order. The time of the warlords commanding independent units was over. Novorossiya needed to have a central command and effective leadership. First to be removed from command was Igor Strelkov himself. He was “politely” asked to resign and return to Russia. Strelkov’s removal was necessary for a variety of reasons:

-Strelkov is a Russian citizen after all. A non-Ukrainian citizen still holding a leadership position just does not look right.

-Strelkov is a staunch Monarchist and is not a fan of Putin and the Kremlin leadership.

-Strelkov is too independent-minded, he decided to retreat from Slavyansk when his superiors had not authorized that move.

-Strelkov is great in commanding a small force. He did everything right in the beginning but, as the scale of the conflict and the size of the opposing forces grew, he was no longer as effective. He is an excellent leader for a company or battalion sized force tasked to conduct a specific mission. Hit and run tactics, covert operations, subversive missions and short duration expeditions are his forte. Leading a brigade sized force in a more conventional style positional warfare scenario is not exactly his cup of tea.

Strelkov had done what he was supposed to do. He was no longer useful in the current situation. He simply had to be withdrawn. He could be an asset again in the future in a different place and under different circumstances. Shortly afterwards, other pro-war rebel leaders were removed; Bez, Khodakovky and others were gone one by one. One lesser rebel leader (Batman) who refused to go was killed in vague circumstances. Recently, the very prominent and well known leader of the Prizrak battalion, Alexander Mozgovoi, was also mysteriously assassinated.

Hardliners in the Novorossiya camp were not happy about these moves and even accused Russia of abandoning Donbass to the Ukrainians. Their views were not correct of course as Russia had saved them from defeat on the battlefield. It was time for the diplomats rather than the guns to do talking now. The hardliner’s time was over; it was the time for the moderates.

Alexander Zacharchenko

Diplomacy

It was the time of Alexander Zakharchenko who just a year ago was an unknown electrician working for a mining company. When the war came to Donbass, he quickly rose in the Oplot militia ranks and became the leader of the group. Well-liked by his men, a positive thinker, a family person who cared about others, charismatic, assertive and soft spoken at the same time, he became the chosen person by the Kremlin to lead the Donetsk region. The population overwhelmingly approved this choice in the local elections. Zakharchenko was now the head of the Popular Republic of Donetsk (DNR), while Igor Plotnisky became the leader of the LNR. From that moment, the hardliner pro-war party took a back bench in Novorossiya. Even the Novorossiya project was frozen since it was a pro-war thing. It was now all about the DNR and LNR staying in the Ukraine as autonomous, independent and self-governing entities. By keeping them in the Ukraine, Russia maintained its influence and leverage over Kiev. The Kiev-junta had now their hands tied and could no longer do as they pleased. This kind of structuring of the Ukrainian nation is reminiscent to present day Iraq where an autonomous Kurdish entity in the north of the country limits the abilities of the central government in Baghdad.This way, Moscow was keeping a foot in Ukraine without having to financially support its faltering economy and without having to subsidize gas and without having to buy any Ukrainian made goods. This way, Moscow was letting the West bleed by providing loans and grants to the failed nation. This way, Moscow was providing the hate-filled, sadistic, dictatorial, fascist, Russophobe oligarch Kiev junta enough rope to hang itself. This kind of regime can survive in times of war. In peace time they will turn on each other.

The first diplomatic breakthrough was achieved in the Minsk negotiations. A ceasefire was agreed upon and a shaky framework was established in which the DNR and LNR were to remain in Ukraine but have wide-ranging autonomy. Hard liners and pro-war elements on both sides would be sidelined and time would allow the wounds to heal. The Donbass camp, with its pro-war elements now sidelined, went along with the Minsk-1 agreements. The Kiev junta signed the documents but did not comply with what was agreed upon. They had other plans.

First handshake between Putin and Poroshenko

The role of moderates in the West camp was played by Germany and France. These two nations were suffering the most from the war because the EU sanctions were backfiring on them. Now that it was clear that Russia will not be beaten and that it will not allow Donbass to be crushed. Merkel and Hollande started to push for peace and discretely applied pressure on Kiev. But peace was not a good alternative for the blood thirsty regime in Kiev. Their authority was standing on the ultranationalist and fascist thugs. Sidelining or eliminating them was not in their favor. Thus, the Kiev junta remained pro-war. They found support among the hawks in Washington and did not pass the necessary laws to allow the agreed autonomy to the Donbass. They also neglected the ceasefire and continued the shelling.

Eventually, the ceasefire together with the whole Minsk agreements collapsed when in January 2015 Kiev forces launched an attack on the rebel controlled parts of the Donetsk International Airport. Zakharchenko’s reorganized units were ready for them. His two most experienced field commanders “Motorola” and “Givi” with their battle-hardened “Sparta” and “Somali” battalions not only repulsed the attack, but went on the counteroffensive and dislodged all the Ukrainian units from the rest of the airport. This latest Ukrainian defeat was not only tactical but also a morale one. Things got exacerbated even more when rebel units conducted several “recon in force” missions on the southern Mariopol axis. The junta commanders took note of the rapid tactical moves: The rebels were now a well-organized, well led, well-motivated, well trained, well equipped force with high morale.

The junta’s supporters in the West also took note of Kiev’s latest failure. Somehow an agreement was made between Washington, Berlin and Paris to de-escalate things and put things back on the path of peace. The high ground was now occupied by Vladimir Putin. Both Merkel and Hollande had to swallow their pride and fly to Moscow to come to terms with the Kremlin.

The Battle for the Debaltsovo Pocket

Collapse in Debaltsovo

Thus was born the Minsk-2 agreement which now had the backing of all sides. Yet Kiev was delusional. When it came to the nitty-gritty, they kept on negotiating on what they already had lost. A most sore point was the Debaltsovo pocket from which they stubbornly refused to withdraw. Night-long negotiations eventually produced an agreement. But the Debaltsovo matter was left in limbo. Kiev did not want to yield the pocket and had reinforced it in such a way that the rebels could not close it and create a cauldron.

To the surprise of most military experts, the Donbass rebel forces did not even attempt to close the pocket at its mouth. Instead they attacked head on through Uglegorsk and took Debaltsovo in a matter of days. Apart from huge personnel losses, the Ukrainian army left behind almost 300 tanks and other armored vehicles, most of them in good condition.

Kiev was now beaten fair and square. Support for the pro-war elements was vanishing. Peace was given a chance.

The Dust Settles

Currently, the Minsk-2 ceasefire is not being fully respected on the ground. But the scale of hostilities is at a much reduced scale. We are now in a phase that can be called: no war and no peace. However, the peace brokering countries (Russia, Germany and France) are against the resumption of hostilities and they are exerting enormous pressure on the pro-war factions of both sides. The US administration’s pro-war attitude has also subsided after the Debaltsovo fiasco. Unless some new parameter comes forth, I do not expect a major resumption of hostilities. A slow and gradual improvement on the ground is what should occur. There can be some minor firefights for at least the short to medium term. The Kiev junta has learned its lesson: They will not be able to beat the Donbass rebellion. Russia will not allow that to happen. The Western powers, particularly the European ones, will not support it. The Anti-Maidan is here to stay. The junta will have to live with it. Lately, the president of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko took some limited action to diminish the power and influence of some of the most pro-war elements in his country. He had the Aidar and Donbass battalions disbanded. He removed the notorious Jewish oligarch Kolomoisky from his post hence neutering his Dnepro battalion and he gave a government position to the neo-Nazi Right-Sector movement’s leader Dimitri Yarosh in order to keep him close. Poroshenko’s moves are designed to centralize the power in his government and avoid having insubordinate pro-war military groups in the country.

On the Novorossiya side, it is the moderates that are now prevailing. The pro-war supporters of a free Novorossiya have been sidelined for the time being. The Kremlin has political, economic and military control over the Donbass region. By mid-May, and with John Kerry’s visit to Sochi, the peaceful discussions have gone up a notch with the US and Russia talking directly to each other about Ukraine – even Victoria Nuland is involved.

Thus, in my humble opinion, we have a frozen conflict in Ukraine. The area may remain peaceful for any amount of time, but there is always the possibility of things flaring up upon any serious shift in the prevailing delicate geopolitical equation. Only the future can tell us.

So, now that the dust is settling, who won this geopolitical conflict? Of course, there is no party who got all it wanted without losing anything. Likewise, there is no party that got crushed and lost everything. The following analysis reveals who won or lost the most:

-The State of Ukraine that was created in 1991 following the breakup of the Soviet Union stands to be the biggest loser in this conflict. They lost Crimea forever and have also lost control over regions of the Donbass that are only nominally still in the country. Ukraine’s economy is now flirting with bankruptcy, living standards have fallen drastically and millions of Ukrainians have left (and are still leaving) the country. The nation is now politically divided and resentful. All these sacrifices happened for virtually no gain. Their EU membership hopes are as bleak as ever. NATO membership is out of question.

-The ruling pro-West junta consisting of Russophobes, fascists, neo-Nazis, ultra-nationalists and oligarchs who successfully came to power via their Maidan revolution remain in their seats to get personally richer. However, they can stay in power only with an iron hand (their thugs) because the majority of the population does not trust them as much as they did during the Maidan days. I don’t see them fixing the many things in Ukraine that need to be fixed. If there is no fresh popular revolt against them, most of them will be gone at the first free and fair elections.

-For all intents and purposes, Novorossiya is now an independent entity. The Donbass people achieved freedom from Kiev. However they are not an independent country and their territory encompasses only a portion of the actual Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Furthermore, the other pro-Russia regions (Kharkov, Zaporozhe, Kherson, Dnepropetrovsk, Nikolayev and Odessa) are still under the grips of Ukraine. The DNR and LNR economies and infrastructure have been heavily damaged by the fighting. They remain very dependent on Russian help.

-No matter how events developed, the USA had little to lose and possibly could get a lot from the conflict. Their main objective was to integrate an anti-Russia Ukraine into NATO and replace the Russian bases in Crimea with American ones. Moscow successfully blocked these plans. Washington retaliated by exerting every tool in its hands to isolate Russia and inflict huge damage to its economy. Those measures mostly failed as well. What the USA got out of the conflict is a West-friendly Ukraine who can be useful in their imperial quest for world domination. On the other they have now a more resentful Russian leadership and population. Washington’s policies in Ukraine also caused an accelerated rapprochement between Russia and China. They also contributed in creating a wedge between the Russophobe nations of Europe (UK, Poland, Baltics etc.) and the more pragmatic ones (France, Hungary, Austria etc.).

-Europe is a clear loser in this conflict. Their Russia sanctions caused significant and lasting damage to their own trade with Russia. Europe is now divided into countries that strictly and blindly follow Washington’s orders and countries that want to conduct foreign policy based on their own interests. Also, now they have to fix what they have broken. The European Union also has to support the faltering Ukrainian economy at a time where there is economic turmoil in some of its own members. In addition, EU’s own silly policies and procedures inflicted self-damage to their own members; one good example is the cancellation of the South Stream gas pipeline project and its diversion via a Turkish route.

-Russia got back the Crimea (the most worthwhile part of Ukraine), thus securing it’s strategically positioned bases and added the Crimean population and economy to its own. Russia also established a pro-Russia area in the Donbass. Call it Novorossiya, call it Donbass or call it DNR/LNR, this heavily militarized and motivated nation is now Russia’s powerful “hammer” in the Ukraine. Moscow can and will use this heavy tool whenever it finds it appropriate to do so. Furthermore, the battle for Novorossiya puts an end to any hawkish Western plans of encroachment into the Russian sphere. The West learned its lessons by finally understanding that Russia will fight back until it gets a solution it is satisfied with. The sanctions imposed on Russia precipitated a much needed realignment of the Russian economy. On the one hand, Russia pivoted east towards China and made all kind of energy, infrastructure, monetary and trade deals with that most important rising economic powerhouse. On the other hand, Russian economy is now taking all kinds of measures to minimize imports and maximize self-dependency. The economy is now directed towards less depending on energy and raw materials exports and finished goods imports. With my limited Russian language skills, I do watch Russian news channels whenever possible. “Importzamishenya” (import substitution) is now one of the most common words used on the Russian media. In a few short years, among other sectors, Russia will turn into a major foodstuff exporter… but that will be the subject of a whole new article.

In brief, the political West threw lemons at Putin. Putin grabbed the lemons and made lemonade.

Sure, Russia did sustain some losses too. Some might say that it lost most of Ukraine. I respectfully disagree. Russia lost Ukraine back in 1991. Since that date, most Ukrainian presidents and governments were not Russia-friendly. Remember the Orange revolution during the last decade? Ukraine’s fortunes and population’s mood swing widely. I expect change for the better in a matter of years. In fact, anti-Russia sentiment in Western and central Ukraine can’t get much worse than it is right now.

The sanctions imposed by the west coupled with the drop of the price of oil did and still will cause some damage to the Russian economy in the short to medium term. But, throughout history, the following saying applies: “what does not kill you will only make you stronger”. I don’t have to be an expert to be certain that the Russian economy will get stronger.

In short, I believe that after sustaining some losses, Russia ends up being the nation that came up on top in the Ukraine turmoil. I received a strong confirmation of my belief on the 9th of May on the Victory Day celebrations.

EpilogueThis year’s 9th of May marked the 70th anniversary of the Victory over Germany. The events and festivities that marked that day were majestic and very well organized. The military parade was extremely impressive as expected. Apart from the new equipment that was put on display (more about that later), three of the day’s events left a deep emotional impression on yours truly.

-The first was a short symbolic act performed by the Russian Defense Minister who made the sing of the cross on himself publicly at the start of the parade. That act symbolized the fact that Russia has faith in God, in itself and in victory. It means that Russia and Russians are not afraid of the evil and are ready to confront it. It means that Russians will rise up and march whenever the need arises.

-The second event was a flower laying ceremony in the Alexandrovky gardens. At the end, a group photo of all the leaders (including Armenian President Sarkisyan) was taken. That photo was “isolated” Russia’s answer to President Obama.

-The third event was the extremely heart-warming “March of the Immortals” where half a million Muscovites (and millions more in other cities) marched through Red Square holding portraits of their own ancestors who died during the Great Patriotic War. That event proved that Russia and Russians are now united around the right and just cause. It proved that Russians are more united than ever around their leadership. Vladimir Putin who enjoys popular approval ratings that Western leaders can only dream of was among the crowd holding a portrait of his father. The sanctions against Russia, the demonization of Putin and everything else that the West did during the Ukraine conflict achieved the exact opposite of their expectations. Instead of fragmenting, Russia and Russians where uniting behind their country, their values, their history, their traditions, their faith and their leaders. The West’s worst nightmare happened…and the miscalculating and politically immature Western leaders did it themselves.

I pray the one day that together with our political and spiritual leaders, us Armenians from Armenia and the diaspora finally unite. In unity there is strength.

I know that the esteemed readers are expecting from me to comment and analyze the new weapon systems that were revealed during the military parade. I will try my best to not fail to meet their expectations. So, let’s get started by clearing some misconceptions:

-First of all, the new weapons are not the final products. They are initial production samples that will undergo rigorous testing in various conditions in order to do all the necessary adjustments, corrections and modifications prior to serial production start. The final products may have some differences with what we saw on Red Square. It is expected that serial production of the final products will start in 2-3 years.

T-14 Tank on Armata Platform

-Second, there is no such thing as an Armata tank or Kurganets troop carrier or a Koalitsya self-propelled artillery. These names are the assigned names for platforms or chassis or turrets. For example there is a T-14 tank based on the Armata chassis and a T-15 Infantry combat Vehicle (IFV) based on the Armata chassis. More about that later.

T-15 IFV on Armata Platform

Third, the Russian Army structure is changing. There will be 3 kinds of units/brigades: Heavy, Medium and Light. The vehicles of the heavy brigades will be based on the Armata platform. The vehicles of the medium brigades will be based on the Kurganets platform while the vehicles of the light brigades will be based on the Boomerang platform. The independent airborne units (VDV) will use their own airdrop able vehicles. There will also be special units that use Typhon-U and Typhon-K type Mine Resistant (MRAP) vehicles.

-Fourthly, very little detail has been provided by the Russians thus far. There is a lot of controversy, disagreements among military experts and enthusiasts who engage themselves into discussions and analysis of the new vehicles. In the following lines, I will mention only the points that are accurately known or generally agreed upon.

Armata platform: What we saw during the parade were the T-14 tank and T-15 infantry fighting vehicles. In the future, there will also be other vehicles/weapons based on this Armata platform including a recovery vehicle. This platform can have the engine in the rear (e.g. the T-14 tank) or up front (T-15). Heavily protected with the latest types of armor, these vehicles also boast Active Protection Systems (APS) that detect incoming anti-tank rockets and kill them with a projectile that explodes in its path. The vehicles also have devices that disrupt the guidance systems of incoming guided missiles.

These vehicles use a multitude of advanced optical, thermal, laser and radar sensors to look around and have accurate/complete situation awareness. No crewman sits in the turrets anymore. The crews are placed in heavily armored capsules providing maximum protection. So, a tank can have its turret blown up and still be able to drive back home, have a new turret placed and go back to the front. The turret of the T-14 tank contains a new 125 mm fully automated gun. A 152mm gun will be available later. The T-15 has the “Epoha” turret that encloses an automatic 30 mm cannon as well as a quartet of the latest version of the Kornet anti-tank guided missile with a range of up to 10 km. The weight of these vehicles is undisclosed. Estimates vary between 48 to 55 tons.

IFV version of Kurganets

Kurganets platform: Two vehicles based on this platform were revealed at the parade. There will be many more including some SAM missile carriers. The IFV version has the same Epoha turret and APS systems as the T-15. The Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) version has a 12.7 mm KORD machine gun and does not have APS, but is simpler and can carry a few more troops. At around 25 tons, these vehicles are lighter than the Armata based vehicles. Their latest generation armor is of course thinner. But these vehicles are fully amphibious and can swim across rivers and other water bodies.

Boomerang platform: This is a wheeled platform (8x8) that will be the basis of all the vehicles in the very mobile light brigades. The only version that was shown is a modern day replacement of the popular BTR series of wheeled APCs. At around 22 tons, this version is equipped with the same Epoha turret of the more heavy platforms.

Boomerang Platform APC

Koalitsya turret: This is a self-contained and unmanned turret that contains a fully automated 152mm long range gun. It can be mounted on tracked or wheeled heavy platforms/chassis. The version that was paraded was on a T-90 tank chassis. In the future, it is expected that it will be mounted on an Armata platform, a heavy Kamaz truck chassis and even on ships. The details that have been disclosed make this gun very impressive. First of all it is super accurate because it has a system that communicates with the outgoing shells that are already in the air. Fuse setting is done remotely (there is no one in the turret). It has the longest range in its class: up to 70 km with some types of advanced shells.

Koalitsya Turret on T-90 Platform

These impressive new weapon systems are of a new generation and outclass whatever the rest of the world has currently or is expected to adopt in the near future. We also know that what was shown is just the tip of the iceberg. Apart from other versions of the aforementioned platforms, Russia is close to introducing new SAM systems (S-350, S-500, MORPHEI and others). New MLRS systems replacing the current Uragan and Smerch rockets are coming soon too. New fighters, bombers, warships and submarines are on the way too. A whole new Russian Army is on the rise. A more peaceful world can be seen on the horizon.ZoravarMay 2015

*** *** ***

70th Anniversary Victory Day Military Parade in Photos

*** *** ***

National Interests: Russia's Military Is Back

A million men under arms. Thousands of new tanks and planes. A hundred
new satellites. Next-generation weapons. Inside Vladimir Putin's $755
billion plan to restore Russian might.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of Vladimir Putin’s
presidency has been his commitment to revitalizing Russia’s military.
Putin, who has noted that Russia’s perceived weakness makes it
vulnerable to external pressure and internal disruption, is pushing for
increased funding to transform the Russian armed forces from the
debilitated remnants inherited from the old Soviet superpower military
machine into a smaller, but more modern, mobile, technologically
advanced and capable twenty-first century force.

Earlier this year, in an address delivered on the day devoted to the
“defenders of the Fatherland,” the Russian president proclaimed:
“Ensuring Russia has a reliable military force is the priority of our
state policy. Unfortunately, the present world is far from being
peaceful and safe. Long obsolete conflicts are being joined by new, but
no less difficult, ones. Instability is growing in vast regions of the
world.”

This is not empty talk. The rhetoric has been matched by a concurrent
allocation of resources; Russia is now engaged in its largest military
buildup since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than two decades
ago, with major increases in defense spending budgeted each year to
2020. Putin has pushed for this program even over the objections of some
within the Kremlin who worried about costs and the possible negative
impact on Russian prosperity; opposition to the expansion of military
spending was one of the reasons the long-serving Finance Minister
Aleksei Kudrin left the cabinet two years ago.

The rest of the world is taking notice.

After years of thinking of Russia as “Upper Volta with missiles”—a
nation which possessed a sizeable strategic nuclear stockpile but whose
conventional forces had not particularly covered themselves with glory
in their post-Soviet operations—Russian plans for military reform and
rearmament have generated some concern, particularly in the U.S.
national-security establishment, which had assumed that Russia would not
be in a position to project much power across its borders. The
resumption of bomber patrols in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the
dispatch of task forces (particularly to the Caribbean), the 2008
campaign against Georgia, and the growing size and sophistication of the
yearly joint maneuvers with the Chinese army and navy have all worked
to resurrect the image of Russia as a military threat. Justification for
U.S. defense expenditures, which previously focused largely on
increases in Chinese spending, now take into account Russia’s military
buildup as well.

Perusing budget reports and position papers, Russian
plans—spearheaded by the Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Dmitry
Rogozin, the deputy prime minister in charge of the defense
industry—certainly look impressive—and ominous. If, only a few years
ago, the shipbuilding budget for the Russian navy was less than 10
percent of the U.S. Navy, the Russians have now closed the gap and the
Russians are, in terms of budgetary outlays, spending about half of what
will be allocated to the U.S. Navy for new ship construction. By 2020,
the Russian army will be structured around combat-ready and easily
deployable brigades, with a goal of having those forces be at least 70
percent equipped with next-generation weaponry and equipment. If all
goes according to plan, the Russian military, by 2020, will return to a
million active-duty personnel, backed up by 2300 new tanks, some 1200
new helicopters and planes, with a navy fielding fifty new surface ships
and twenty-eight submarines, with one hundred new satellites designed
to augment Russia’s communications, command and control capabilities.
Putin has committed to spending some $755 billion over the next decade
to fulfill these requirements.

And a growing number of Russians support the military buildup. A
Levada Center poll found that 46 percent of Russians were in favor of
increasing military spending even if it led to an economic slowdown
(versus 41 percent opposed if defense increases caused economic
hardship). This is in part due to a growing fear that Russia’s vast
natural resource endowment, particularly in the Arctic, is vulnerable if
the country lacks the means to protect it. Rogozin himself has
continuously warned that without a modern military force, Russia is
liable to be “looted” in the future.

Yet there is often a noticeable gap between declared Russian
intentions and executable results. To what extent are these ambitious
goals realizable?

Some observers have been prepared to write off these plans as
Potemkin posturing—or new and creative ways to transfer more of Russia’s
state funds into private hands through creative, corrupt schemes.
Certainly, any expansion of the military budget represents enormous
opportunities for graft. But it would be a mistake to dismiss the clear
evidence that this buildup is restoring capabilities to the Russian
armed forces that had been lost after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In the last eighteen months, Russia conducted military exercises on a
scale not seen since the end of the Cold War (such as the recently
concluded military trials in the Far East). While still highlighting
problems with command and control systems and with equipment, these
nonetheless have also demonstrated that the reforms are starting to have
an impact, and that Russia is capable of fielding a more mobile,
effective force.

This concerns NATO a great deal. The North Atlantic alliance’s
ability to conduct “out-of-area” operations, combined with the decision
by most European countries to significantly reduce their defense
spending, was predicated on an assumption that Russia no longer poses a
threat. While no one is anticipating Russian tanks again poised to rush
through the Fulda Gap, the American expectation that Europe could become
a “security exporter” to other, more troubled parts of the world must
now be revisited, since Russia is effectively reversing its “disarmed”
condition of the 1990s upon which such calculations were based.

At the same time, however, the buildup will not be smooth sailing for the Russian government.

The first issue is whether Russia’s defense industry can actually
produce the tools called for in the new defense strategy. Dmitry
Gorenburg of the Center for Naval Analyses has noted that the plans
released by the Ministry of Defense rely on overly optimistic
assessments of how quickly Russian factories and shipyards can turn out
new equipment—assuming that there will be no delays, technical or design
problems, or bottlenecks. Design problems have already forced a
two-year delay in implementing a state procurement order for
thirty-seven Su-35 aircraft, which will not be fulfilled until 2016.
Gorenburg and other experts argue that it is highly unlikely that the
buildup will come close to meeting the stated targets.

Moreover, the Russian military-industrial complex is far from
achieving a “zero-defects” standard when it comes to producing
equipment. A string of missile failures (particularly with the Bulava
submarine-launched ballistic missile), delays in releasing new ships (or
in getting the retrofitted aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov/Vikramaditya
ready for service in the Indian Navy), and issues with quality control
in vehicles have all raised questions about the reliability of
Russian-made military products.

There is also real concern about the health of Russia’s research and
development sector and whether or not Russia can indigenously produce
many of the technologies needed to produce fifth-generation weapons
systems. Former defense minister Anatoly Serdyukov strongly resisted
pressure to simply order slightly-newer variants of older, Soviet-era
equipment, even though Russian industries were lobbying for increased
state orders, and sought to import defense items from abroad, including
drones from Israel, the Iveco light multirole vehicles from Italy, and
the Mistral amphibious assault ships from France, as a way to equip the
Russian military with newer technologies that could not be produced by
domestic sources. (Finding ways to license or reverse-engineer foreign
military technology will be one of the Russian defense industry’s major
tasks in the coming decade). Discontent with Serdyukov’s willingness to
turn to foreign suppliers, however, was one of the contributing factors
in his removal as defense minister last year.

Serdyukov also attempted to reform the manpower structure of the
Russian military, again arousing significant opposition by his efforts
to reduce the size of the officer corps (especially the number of
general and flag officers) and to push the Russian military away from
reliance on the draft towards the development of a volunteer,
professional force. But announced plans to increase the size of the
standing army run up against Russia’s demographic realities. Russia has a
labor shortage; the recovery of the Russian economy has diminished the
surplus pool of excess labor that in years past would have been absorbed
by the draft. Between deferments and the increase in health problems
among some segments of the Russian population, some 60 percent of the
draft-age population of young males is now ineligible for service.
Efforts to make contract service more appealing (following some of the
reforms undertaken in the United States in the shift to an all-volunteer
force back in the 1970s) have had some successes, but while the Russian
military has announced it will create forty new brigades (to augment
the some seventy brigades already in existence) by 2020, it must also
deal with the reality that many existing units are 25 percent or so
understrength. Shoigu must continue reforms of how the Russian military
recruits (and treats) its personnel—the compulsory draft and the harsh
conditions created by the so-called dedovshchina system (the
hazing of new recruits by their non-commissioned officers and other
superiors) do not lend themselves to creating a more professional
military force capable of attracting and retaining volunteers. The
amount that must be spent—on increased salaries, perks and incentives—to
attract more Russians to contract service may also be more than what
the defense establishment is willing to pay.

Much will depend on several factors. The first is whether the Russian
treasury will hang on to the same expected level of funds from the
export of oil and natural gas to support the military transformation;
any major collapse in the price of energy imperils these plans. The
second is whether the Russian defense industry can become more agile and
adaptive. Will they use increases in state spending to successfully
unveil new products? This will be important not only to fulfill Putin’s
requirements but also to retain Russia’s traditionally lucrative
overseas markets for sales of military goods. Russia will lose its
competitive edge not only to American and European competitors but also
to Chinese firms if it cannot keep pace with newer developments in
defense technology. A third point is whether the Russian military can
obtain the manpower it needs, whether by offering better terms of
contract service or being permitted to recruit among Russian-speaking
populations elsewhere in the former Soviet Union.

But even if the Defense Ministry’s ambitious targets for how many
personnel it expects to have under arms and the quantity of advanced
equipment it hopes to field are not met in full, the Russian military is
growing stronger. Russia may not be in a position to directly challenge
the United States—whose spending still far outstrips that of
Moscow’s—but given other regional trends, especially in Europe, it is
restoring its conventional capabilities to back up claims to great power
status. Whether the newfound confidence that results will make Russia
more cooperative or obstructionist in the international arena is an open
question.

Introduction

The Russian military
suffered years of neglect after the Soviet collapse and no longer casts
the shadow of a global superpower. However, the Russian armed forces are
in the midst of a historic overhaul withsignificant
consequences for Eurasian politics and security. Russian officials say
the reforms are necessary to bring a Cold War-era military into the
twenty-first century, but many Western analysts fear they will enable
Moscow to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy, often relying on
force to coerce its weaker neighbors. Some say Russian interventions in
Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014—both
former Soviet republics seeking closer ties to the West—demonstrate
that President Vladimir Putin is prepared to use military force to
reestablish Russian hegemony in its near abroad.

What are Russian conventional military capabilities?

Both in terms of troops and
weapons, Russian conventional forces dwarf those of its Eastern
European and Central Asian neighbors (see Table 1), many of which are
relatively weak ex-Soviet republics closely allied with Moscow. Russia
has a military pact with Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and
Tajikistan through the Collective Security Treaty Organization,
formed in 1992. Moscow also stations significant troops in the region:
Armenia (3,200), Georgia's breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia (7,000), Moldova's separatist Transnistria region (1,500),
Kyrgyzstan (500), and Tajikistan (5,000).

Table 1

As part of defense reforms, most Russian ground forces are to be
professionalized and reorganized into formations of a few thousand
troops for low- and medium-intensity conflicts. But for the foreseeable
future many will remain one-year conscripts with limited training
(military service is compulsory for Russian men aged eighteen to
twenty-seven). The Airborne Assault Forces, which comprises about
thirty-five thousand troops and whose commander answers directly to
Putin, is Russia's elite crisis-reaction force. A Special Operations
Command, also a reserve of Putin, was created in 2013 to manage special
operators outside Russian borders.

Moscow is intent on remilitarizing its Arctic territory and is
restoring Soviet-era airfields and ports to help protect important hydrocarbon resources and shipping lanes.
(Russia has the world's largest fleet of icebreakers, which are
regularly required to navigate these waters.) In late 2013, Putin
ordered the creation of a new strategic military command in the Russian
Arctic.

Figure 1

Meanwhile, rearmament has been slow, and much of the military's
equipment remains decades old. The once formidable Soviet navy is now
little more than a coastal protection force, experts say. All of the
navy's large vessels, including its flagship and sole aircraft carrier,
the non-nuclear Kuznetsov, are holdovers from the Cold War. (By
comparison, the United States has ten nuclear carriers and builds
several new warships each year.) Russian air power will also be limited,
at least in the short term. Aircraft manufacturer Sukhoi is developing
several new advanced warplanes, including a fifth-generation "stealth"
fighter (the T-50), but production has been sluggish in some cases, and
most of the current air force dates from the 1980s.

Russia has made the modernization of its air and space defenses a top
priority of the rearmament program, establishing a consolidated
Aerospace Defense Command in 2011. The mainstay of this defense network
is the S-400,
a long- to medium-range surface-to-air missile system, to be deployed
near Moscow and strategic positions along Russia's perimeter. A more
advanced S-500 is in development.

What are Russian nuclear capabilities?

Russia's vast nuclear
arsenal remains on par with the United States and is the country's only
residual great power feature, military experts say. Moscow has about
1,500 strategic warheads on deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles
(ICBMs), submarines, and heavy bombers. These numbers comply with the
so-called New START treaty
with the United States, which came into force February 2011. Russia is
also believed to have some 2,000 nonstrategic (also referred to as
tactical, theater, or battlefield) nuclear warheads.

Russia leaned on its nuclear deterrent as its conventional force
languished in the years after the Soviet collapse. NATO's bombing of
Yugoslavia in 1999 added to fears in the Kremlin that the U.S.-led
alliance might impede Russia's ability to act in the region. Moscow
appeared to lower its nuclear threshold
in 2000, permitting the use of such weapons in response to major
conventional attacks. By comparison, Soviet doctrine reserved nuclear
weapons for use only in retaliation for a nuclear attack. Much of the Russian nuclear deterrent is being modernized: a new
class of ballistic missile submarine is coming into service; some
strategic bombers are being upgraded; and there are plans to replace all
Soviet-era ICBMs over the next decade or so.

What is the Russian military budget?

At close to $90 billion for
2013, the Russian military budget has more than doubled over the last
decade (see Figure 2), trailing behind only China ($188 billion) and the
United States ($640 billion), according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
(SIPRI). (Data includes funding for armed services, paramilitary
forces, military space activities, foreign military aid, and military
R&D.)

Defense spending has benefited from a surge in global energy prices
over the last decade, as oil and gas account for more than half of
Russia's federal budget revenues, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
In 2014, Russia is about half way through a ten-year $700 billion
weapons modernization program, with priorities given to strategic
nuclear weapons, fighter aircraft, ships and submarines, air defenses,
communications and intelligence.

But analysts say recent spending should be taken in context. First,
defense outlays plunged dramatically during the 1990s and remain well
below Soviet levels. Second, Russia still spends a fraction of what the
United States and many of its allies spend per soldier. Third, high
inflation rates in the defense industry as well as endemic corruption
consume a large portion of newly allocated resources. And, lastly,
Russian defense spending is closely tied to global energy prices,
which can fluctuate dramatically. Many analysts link the two-thirds
drop in oil prices in the mid-1980s to the fall of the Soviet Union in
1991.

Figure 2

What prompted the reforms?

The five-day conflict with
Georgia in August 2008 exposed major deficiencies—in command-and-control
systems, hardware, weaponry, and intelligence—and confirmed that
Russia's mass-mobilization military, where millions of conscripts could
marshal to protect the motherland, remained outdated.

"The Georgian war was arguably the last war of the twentieth century for Russia's armed forces;
in the sense that it was largely fought using organizations, tactics,
and equipment designed in the last century," wrote Roger N. McDermott, a
Eurasian military expert at the Jamestown Foundation, in 2009.

In the weeks after the conflict, Defense Minister Anatoliy Serdyukov,
a powerful reformer appointed by Putin, recommitted the military to a
lengthy overhaul involving massive personnel cuts (from 1.2 million to 1
million), rearmament, and reorganization into a professional force
capable of responding quickly to acute crises.

Experts assessing the status of reform in late 2013 say it has lacked
strategic direction and suffered from major planning failures, and they
forecast a number of challenges related to personnel, funding, and
procurement in years ahead. However, they conclude the overhaul has made
tremendous strides. "It is undoubtedly the case that post-[military]
transformation Russia will have a very different force available from
the one that went into action in Georgia in 2008, and one that is more
effective, flexible, adaptable, and scalable for achieving Russia's
foreign policy aims," wrote coauthors of a Strategic Studies Institute report.

What does Russia consider threats?

Russian leaders acknowledge
that there is now little threat of a large-scale NATO land invasion— a
top concern of the Cold War—but they repeatedly criticize the bloc's
eastward expansion, including its plans to roll out a ballistic missile defense shield
across Europe. The United States, which developed the technology, says
the system is only designed to guard against limited missile attacks
from "rogue" states like Iran, but Moscow believes the technology could
be updated and may tip the strategic nuclear balance. Putin and his
military leaders have also frequently expressed concern with
conventional precision strike weapons being developed by rivals.

Figure 3

Moscow believes the so-called color revolutions—a series of popular
uprisings in former Soviet satellites—were concerted attempts by the
United States and its allies to erode Russian influence in the region.
"Russian foreign policy appears to be based on a combination of fears of
popular protest and opposition to U.S. world hegemony, both of which
are seen as threatening the Putin regime," writes Dmitry Gorenburg, an expert on the Russian military at CNA, a Virginia-based research institution.

Military modernization will
enable the world's largest country by far (and one of the most sparsely
populated) to better defend its vast territory and national interests.
But the conflicts in Ukraine and Georgia have aroused concerns about
Russian aggression, namely Putin's willingness to use military force
unilaterally to preserve Russia's traditional sphere of influence.

Shortly before annexing Crimea in March 2014, Putin said he would
defend the rights of Russians abroad, and in April he referred to a
large swath of Ukrainian territory as Novorossiya (New Russia),
a term used during imperial Russia. According to NATO and Ukrainian
officials, Moscow has provided ethnic Russian insurgencies in Eastern
Ukraine with training, personnel, and heavy weapons, including battle
tanks and antiaircraft missiles. In November, Russia acknowledged rebel
elections in the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, a move that
echoed Russia's unilateral recognition of separatist governments in
Abkhazia and South Ossetia after its conflict with Georgia in 2008.

But Russia's assertiveness has come with a cost. The Group of Eight (now G7)
cut Moscow out of its elite club in March, and top Russian officials,
banks, and businesses face an array of Western sanctions that may push
the economy into recession. The Russian military will also suffer:
France has delayed delivery of the first of two Mistral-class amphibious
warships, and Russia's extensive defense-industrial cooperation with Ukraine is in jeopardy.

Experts say that there may also be domestic political consequences down the road. "[Putin]'s brand of ethnic geopolitics,
redolent of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth,
is a double-edged sword," wrote Strobe Talbott, president of the
Brookings Institution, in August 2014. "It could shrink Russian
territory, since vast parts of that country are populated by non-Russian
ethnic groups who are unlikely to welcome or, over the long run,
tolerate a Russian chauvinist in the Kremlin."

What is U.S. and NATO strategy toward Russia?

Alliance leaders are
reassessing defenses in Europe, particularly in the East. Since the
annexation of Crimea, NATO has quadrupled (to sixteen) the number of
warplanes policing the Baltics, which have witnessed a major surge in
provocations involving Russian planes. NATO also announced plans for a
new rapid reaction force—the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force
(VJTF)—of about five thousand troops. Officials say the VJTF should be
fully operational in early 2016 and will serve as an elite subset of the
NATO Response Force composed of thirteen thousand troops.

Some analysts recommend the alliance adopt a strategy of containment
not unlike that of the Cold War. "Give up any hope of a return to
business as usual; Boost the defense of Baltic states and Poland; Expose
Russian corruption in the West; Impose sweeping visa sanctions on the
Russian elite; Help Ukraine; and Reboot the Atlantic Alliance," writes British journalist and Russia expert Edward Lucas.

CFR's Janine Davidson, an expert on military and defense strategy, says that NATO members need to prepare for the type of guerilla tactics
Russia has used in eastern Ukraine. "NATO must consider what happens if
and when these well-armed, unmarked, [Special Operations Forces]-like,
suspiciously disciplined masked men turn up in a NATO nation, such as
Estonia or Latvia (respectively 24 and 27 percent ethnic Russian) and
commence another creeping invasion," she writes.

At the same time, CNA's Gorenburg says Baltic governments should be
wary of Russian subversion. "There is a danger that in focusing too much
on strengthening military defenses, the Baltic states and NATO will
neglect the non-military tools in Russia's toolkit, including promoting
and funding Euroskeptic political movements, encouraging radical groups
to commit violent acts to create an environment of disorder, and using
information warfare techniques to strengthen anti-government and anti-EU
attitudes among minority populations," he told CFR.

Paraded uncovered for the first time on 9 May in Moscow, Russia's new
range of armoured vehicles represent not only the biggest change in the
country's armoured vehicle families since the 1970s but also a new
design ethos. While the vehicles' designs partly involve radical rather than
revolutionary innovation, the scale and ambition of the change they
embody is nothing short of a revolution. Together, the Armata,
Kurganets, Boomerang, and Koalitsiya and other vehicles on show will
replace nearly all Russia's existing vehicle families as, remarkably,
Russia is attempting to replace all its main armoured fighting vehicle
(AFV) families at the same time.Additionally, the new vehicles display radical changes in design
ethos and incorporate multiple previously unseen active protection
systems (APSs). The reported weight and the apparent size of all the
vehicles indicates a shift in armoured vehicle design philosophy away
from the Soviet emphasis on manoeuvrability and low vehicle profile
towards the Western focus on armour protection and crew survivability. While many details of the vehicles had already been known, and were covered in depth by JDW
in April, the full unveiling of the vehicles has revealed many
fascinating new details and added greatly to our understanding of the
vehicle family designs.

T-14 Armata main battle tank (MBT)

The T-14 is Russia's first truly new tank design since the T-72,
designed in the early 1970s. Based on the Armata Universal Tracked
Platform, the T-14's most attention-grabbing feature is its unmanned
turret, with all of the MBT's three crew (commander, driver, gunner)
seated in a well-protected crew compartment at the front of the hull.

Russia's T-14 Armata MBT (IHS/Andrey Kryuchenko/Russian MoD)

Seven T-14s took part in the parade and the type is slated to replace
the Russian Ground Forces' T-72M3 and T-90 main battle tanks (MBTs)
currently in service. Notably, the unveiled turret dispels suggestions the MBT would be
armed with a coaxial 30 mm cannon, in addition to its 2A82A 125 mm main
gun. Indeed the pre-production vehicles paraded by Russia feature
neither a 30 mm cannon nor a coaxial machine gun (MG) armament as
expected, although the production vehicles might eventually feature the
dual 30 mm cannon/7.62 mm MG.Although the T-14's turret features a large bustle, it remains
unclear whether this features the autoloader/weapon-handling system for
the MBT's main gun or serves another purpose (meaning the T-14 would
retain the vulnerable hull-mounted carousel system present in previous
Russian MBTs). Some reports also indicate Russia has not entirely
abandoned its ambitions to arm Armata with a 152 mm main gun. If this is
the case, it could explain why the T-14's unmanned turret has an
unusually high profile relative to the position of the 125 mm main gun,
with the turret possibly designed to incorporate growth potential up to
the 152 mm calibre.T-14 is armed with a remote-controlled turret (RCT) armed with a 7.62
mm PKTM MG, with the unit also functioning as the commander's
independent sight. The gunner's sight is mounted to the left side of the
main gun and shielded by a two-piece armoured door to protect it from
small arms fire. A barrel reference unit is mounted above the base of
the 2A82A main gun, which notably lacks a fume bore extractor (which
would be superfluous given the turret is unmanned). Metrological,
satellite communications, GLONASS, datalink, and radio communications
antennae are fitted on the roof of the turret.The MBT's turret is literally covered in a variety of launcher and
sensor systems understood to be linked to a new APS system, which some
reports call 'Afghanit'. At the base of each side of the turret are five
large and fixed horizontally arrayed launch tubes covering the 120°
frontal arc of the turret. These bear a strong resemblance to the
launchers for the earlier Drozd and Drozd-2 APS, which fired a hard-kill
107 mm unguided projectile armed with a high-explosive-(HE) fragment
warhead to defeat incoming anti-tank guided weapons (ATGWs).The T-14 is also fitted with four sets of smaller-calibre launchers,
with each unit armed with 12 launch tubes. Two horizontally trainable
launcher units are fitted on either side of the top of the turret, while
two apparently fixed and vertically facing launcher units are recessed
into the top of the tank's turret.It is unclear whether this second system fires hard-kill (ie
warheads) or soft-kill (ie anti-infrared/laser-obscuring smoke)
munitions, or a combination of the two. It is also unclear if the
vertically mounted units are fireable, or simply storage for reload
units for the two trainable launchers. One limitation of the Drozd
systems were that they provided no protection against threats emanating
from above the tank, so mounting the fixed launchers vertically could be
one way to provide protection against top-attack threats.Providing warning and guidance for the APS system are two types of
sensors mounted around the T-14's turret. Two large sensors, believed to
be electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR)-based laser warning receivers, are
angularly mounted on the front of the turret providing 180° coverage,
while four smaller sensors (covered but believed to be radars) are
mounted around the turret providing 360° coverage.Armata features a notably different hull design to the T-72/90. One
striking difference is the road wheels, which are of a different design
to the T-72/90's, while the Armata features seven road wheels, to the
six of the previous MBT designs, with the drive wheel at the rear. This
is similar to the T-80 MBT family, which also has chassis with seven
smaller road wheels.It is not known whether Armata is equipped with a gas-turbine or a
diesel engine, but the T-14's powerpack is mounted at the rear of the
MBT, with two internal fuel tanks mounted on either side, and exhausts
also mounted on either side. Day/night cameras are mounted around the
T-14's turret to provide situational awareness, while a forward-looking
EO/IR (FLIR) system is mounted on the front of the hull for the driver.
The driver's hatch has no periscopes. When driving buttoned-down, the
driver may be in a reclined position, using a set of periscopes mounted
on a second hatch directly behind him.NII Stali is understood to have designed a new form of steel armour
for the Armata family. Speaking to TASS, a NII Stali representative said
the "steel armour alloy, named 44S-sv-Sh [44S--], is approved by the
Armata's developer. The alloy's operational testing has been started and
it can be used in prospective vehicles' parts". The use of the
44S-sv-Sh steel in Armata is intended to provide protection at a similar
level to STANAG 4569 (first edition) Level 5. The high level of
44S-sv-Sh's protection is ensured by the short-grained material
structure, the optimised legation process and the special heat
processing. The steel has also been designed to maintain its
characteristics in very cold conditions.The Armata design is also understood to utilise explosive reactive
armour (ERA) within its base design (rather than the appliqué ERA tiles
seen on previous Russian MBTs), with views from above the MBT showing a
distinctive tiled pattern indicative of ERA on the top of the vehicle's
chassis and turret. Although what appear to be ERA tiles are present on
the turret roof, much of the sides of the turret appears to be just a
thin cladding covering the various APS and sighting systems rather than
armour. Appliqué armour (unclear if passive or ERA, or both) is fitted
to the forward two thirds of the T-14's sides, while the rear third is
protected by bar armour to provide clearance for the T-14's exhausts.

T-15 Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV)

Also based on the Armata universal platform and fully unveiled during the 9 May parade is the T-15 Heavy IFV.

Russia's T-15 Armata Heavy IFV. (IHS/Andrey Kryuchenko/Russian MoD)

For the creation of the T-15 the Armata chassis has been reversed in
its entirety to create a compartment to accommodate dismounts at the
rear of the IFV. Accordingly, the T-15's powerpack is mounted at the
front of the vehicle, with the drive wheel also at the front and the
exhausts now on the forward sides of the vehicle. This swap has necessitated relocating the vehicle's fuel tanks, while
to protect the normally weaker armour of the rear of the Armata chassis
a distinctive arrowhead-shaped armour package extends around the
forward sides of the vehicle. To accommodate the vehicle's exhausts the
side armour is overhanging rather than arrowhead. The overall effect of
this is to give the vehicle an odd, bulbous appearance. The top of the
vehicle's chassis appears to be protected by integrated ERA tiles.

T-15 Armata heavy infantry fighting vehicles (IFV) take part in the Victory Day Parade in Moscow. (PA Photos)

The T-15 is armed with a KBP Instrument Design Bureau Epoch
Almaty-designed RCT at the rear of the vehicle equipped with a 30 mm
2A42 cannon, 7.62 mm coaxial MG, and a bank of two Kornet-M ATGWs on
either side. The RCT features a gunner's sight to the right of the main
gun and an independent commander's sight on the top of the turret on the
left-hand side. The heavy IFV is also fitted with an advanced armour package on the
side of the vehicle. The T-15 appears to feature the same APS sensors
and launchers as seen on the T-14, although mounted on the hull of the
vehicle rather than its turret. A three-man crew (commander, gunner, driver) are located in the
centre of the vehicle, behind the engine, with the rear of the vehicle's
hull raised to accommodate the troop compartment and turret. Egress
from the crew compartment is made via a power-assisted door at the rear
of the vehicle. The front/underside of both the T-14 and T-15 is fitted with what appears to be a small entrenching/counter-mine system.

Kurganets-25

The lighter, 25-tonne, Kurganets-25 was present in two variants at
the 9 May parade: IFV and armoured personnel carrier (APC). The new
vehicle family appears significantly wider and taller than BMP series of
vehicles it is slated to replace.

Russian Kurganets-25 IFVs take part in the 9 May 2015 Victory Day Parade in Moscow. (PA Photos)

The IFV variant is armed with the same 30 mm cannon/Kornet ATGW armed
turret as the T-15. Uralvagonzavod has also created its AU-220M turret
armed with a 57 mm cannon, which is understood to be in contention to be
fitted to the IFV variant, although this was not fitted to the
Kurganets-25 IFVs taking part in the parade. Much like the Armata vehicles, the Kurganets-25 IFV appears to
feature two types of APS sensor and effector, although these appear
subtly different to those on the Armata vehicles. Fixed launchers are
placed all around the vehicle hull, providing 360° coverage. While these
resemble the launches on the Armata vehicles, they appear to be of a
much smaller calibre. A two-part sensor system, similar to the
laser-warning receivers on the Armata vehicles, is also located around
the hull. Oddly, three sensors are located on the left-side of the
vehicle, but only two on the right-side. Given both sets of sensors and
effectors are located on the hull, it would appear the two systems are
linked.

Three two-part sensors (covered during the parade) are also mounted
around the turret, along with four sets of effectors on the front of the
turret and two mounted sidewise on the rear of the turret. It is
unclear what these effectors are, but they appear similar to an unknown
system seen mounted on the turret of the earlier T-95 (Object 195)
prototype MBT. On the IFV, each set has a pair of what are either round
windows or frangible covers. If they are windows, this system could be a
new APS interference emitter similar to a greatly slimmed-down version
of the soft-kill Shtora system present on the T-90. Alternatively, each
set could contain two of the effectors from the smaller-calibre
launchers on the Armata vehicles. Given that the coverage provided by
the location of the effectors appears to intermesh, the latter option
seems more likely.

Kurganets-25 IFV. (IHS/Andrey Kryuchenko)

The APC version, meanwhile, is fitted with a much smaller RCT armed
with 12.7 mm MG. The APC lacks the hull-mounted sensors or effectors
seen on the IFV variant, and instead features solely the second APS type
present on the Kurganets-25 IFV. While the sensor configuration is the
same for this APS on both the APC and IFV variants, the configuration of
the effectors differs. On the APC vehicle, the effectors are located
only on the front of the turret and instead of six sets of paired
effectors, there are four sets of paired effectors, and four sets of
single effectors.

Kurganets-25 APC. (IHS/Andrey Kryuchenko)

Both the APC and IFV variants are otherwise identical, with a
forward-mounted powerpack and seven road wheels. Commander and driver's
hatches are present in front of the turret, with access to the troop
compartment via a rear door. Unlike in previous Russian IFV designs,
there are no other hatches for troops carried inside, apart from the
rear door. Neither variants feature any obvious ERA, although ERA has
not typically been fitted to Russian IFVs. Both feature a large appliqué kit to the sides of the vehicle,
although whether this is principally for armour or flotation purposes is
unclear. Amphibious capability has been designed into the Kurganets
family, with both featuring a bow plane and waterjets installed within
the rear of the hull.

Boomerang

The Boomerang 8x8 vehicle also made its full debut at the 9 May
parade, and is intended to replace the BTR-family of vehicles, the most
recent variant in Russian service being the BTR-82A.

The 8x8 is armed with the same turret as both the T-15 and the
Kurganets-25 IFV, although the examples taking part in the parade were
fitted with no APS systems. An APC variant fitted with an RCT with a
12.7 mm MG is also understood to be planned.

Boomerang 8x8 IFV. (IHS/Andrey Kryuchenko)

Boomerang's powerpack is located in the front right-hand side of the
vehicle, with the driver at the front-left side of the vehicle. Neither
the vehicle's commander nor gunner have their own hatch, although unlike
the Kurganets vehicles there are two roof-hatches for the troop
compartment. With the engine located in the front of the vehicle, troops
can egress via a door at the rear of the vehicle, unlike the awkward
side doors of the BTR series (which had their engine at the rear). Also
designed to be amphibious, Boomerang is equipped with a bow plane at the
front of the hull and shrouded propellers at the rear of the 8x8.

Koalitsiya-SV

Also shown off on the 9 May parade was the 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV
(Coalition-SV) self-propelled artillery (SPA) system, which will replace
the 2S19 MSTA-S SPA in Russian Ground Forces service.

Russia's
Koalitsia-SV (Coalition-SV) self propelled artillery system (SPA) takes
part in the Victory Day Parade in Moscow. (PA Photos)

This is understood to feature a new 152 mm ordnance utilising a
modular charge system. This main gun features notably different muzzle
brake and recoil dampeners to the earlier SPA. An RCT armed with a 12.7
mm MG is mounted on the roof of the turret. There are two bundles of
902B Tucha smoke grenade launchers mounted on either side of the cabin
and no other APS effectors, although four warning receivers are located
on the SPA's turret. The main turret, understood to be unmanned akin to
the T-14's turret, is significantly longer than the 2S19's.

Koalitsiya 152 mm SPA. (IHS/Andrey Kryuchenko)

Although Koalitsiya-SV was slated to be based on the Armata universal
chassis, the pre-production vehicles appear based on a modified T-72/90
chassis. The general layout and roadwheels appears to be identical to
those on the T-72/90 chassis, although the front of the chassis has been
heavily modified to create positions for the commander and gunner on
either side of the driver. Unlike on Armata, where the driver is located
on the right side of the vehicle, the driver on Koalitsiya is located
in the centre of the vehicle (as seen in the T-72/90 and 2S19).According to Georgy Zakamennih, chief director of TsNII Burevestnik,
the developer of the 2S35, Coalition-SV has a maximum range of 70 km
when firing advanced shells. He added that its ammunition load is larger
than Western analogues. There is a unified command-and-control panel on
which all the actions are displayed. The system's pneumatic loader is
billed as increasing Coalition-SV's rate of fire. 2S35 can automatically
choose the appropriate type of shell and fire it. Coalition-SV is
therefore not a classic self-propelled gun but an innovative robotised
complex, autonomous to a high extent, he said.

With
America's own tanks becoming quite dated and running out of upgrade
options, Russia's latest efforts to modernize its armored fighting
vehicles should be cause for concern

The Russian Army will induct a new family of armored combat vehicles collectively called the Armata next year
to replace its existing armored war machines, according to Russian
state media. Production of the new armored vehicles is expected to start
at the beginning of 2015 in January and two dozen of the new machines
are expected to participate in the Victory Day parade in Moscow next
year—as America struggles with the future of its own armored combat
vehicles.

Developed by the Uralvagonzavod (UVZ) Corporation in the remote city
of Nizhny Tagil in the Ural Mountains, the Armata is being developed in
multiple variants, including a main battle tank, infantry fighting
vehicle, a heavy-armored personnel carrier, self-propelled artillery and
two support vehicle variants. The Russian ground forces are expected
show off two-dozen machines during the parade—half will be the main
battle-tank variant, while the remainder will be the armored
personnel-carrier variant.

The Armata will ultimately replace the Cold War–era T-64, T-72, T-80
and comparatively newer T-90 tanks by the 2030s—assuming the Russian
government can pay for it. The Armata series will also replace the
BMP-series infantry fighting vehicles and a host of other vehicles;
production could go into the tens of thousands if Russia were able to
replace its existing vehicles on a one-for-one basis.

According to ITAR-TASS, the main battle-tank variant will be armed
with a 125-mm cannon—which has been the standard on Soviet-built
hardware in the 1960s—but the weapon will be mounted on an unmanned
turret. The crew will be housed in a separate armored compartment—which
is a unique configuration for any modern main battle tank. Some Russian media reports have suggested that the Armata’s armor is
specifically being tailored to operate well in the Arctic Circle, an
area of the world that is becoming increasingly important for that
country’s embattled economy.

Further, in a marked departure from the usual Soviet practice, the
Armata program appears to place a far higher priority on crew
survivability than any previous Soviet or Russian tank. That could be
because Russia is trying to transition from a Soviet-era,
conscription-based force to a professional army where individual
soldiers are not considered expendable.

As such, the Armata-series vehicles are being designed with a completely new armor layout
and will have all-aspect protection, Vyacheslav Khalitov,
Uralvagonzavod deputy general director, told the Russian News Service
radio station. The crew will be separated from the vehicle’s fuel and
ammunition stocks, Khalitov said. As such, it’s possible the internal
configuration of the new vehicles bears more resemblance to Western
machines such as the M1A2 Abrams or German Leopard 2A7+ than to older
Soviet tanks.

Little else is known about the Armata project, save for the fact that
everything appears to be proceeding more or less on schedule—if Russian
reports are to be believed. “Everything is proceeding in line with the
contract. Work is being done ahead of schedule. We get ahead of all
schedules,” Oleg Siyenko, Uralvagonzavod general director told ITAR-TASS in September. Additionally, Siyenko said that Armata project is currently meeting all of the Russian military’s requirements.

However, the Armata might be proving to be more expensive than the
Russian government expected. Bochkaryov told ITAR-TASS that the Armata’s price tag is currently too high.
Nonetheless, the Russian government is expected to sign a three-year
deal to build the Armata at a set price. “We will continue to work with
them, because we disagree with Uralvagonzavod high price,” Bochkaryov
told Russia Today, another state-run media outlet. According to
ITAR-TASS, Uralvagonzavod officials have promised to reduce the price of
the new vehicle.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Army has made several abortive attempts to
replace the long-serving Bradley infantry fighting vehicle and the
Abrams main battle tank. In the early 2000s, the Army launched the Future Combat Systems (FCS)
as a family of lightweight vehicles that would replace the service’s
heavily armored tanks, infantry fighting vehicle and self-propelled
artillery and other machines.

The idea was to develop multiple vehicles based on a common 20-ton
lightweight chassis with the same survivability as an Abrams, so that an
entire brigade could be deployed in eighteen hours to anywhere on the
planet. However, physics intervened. It quickly became obvious that a
20-ton vehicle could never hope to match the protection of a 70-ton
tank—short of some sort of miraculous breakthrough.

The Ground Combat Vehicle program—meant to replace just the
Bradley—followed the 2009 termination of the FCS effort, but that
effort, too, was cancelled in February 2014 after the machine started to
morph into an unwieldy and expensive behemoth. The current effort is
called the Future Fighting Vehicle program—it’s too early to tell where
that program is heading, however.

Meanwhile, there is no program to replace the Abrams main battle
tank. The Army hopes to eventually build (or more precisely,
remanufacture) a new version of the tank that will be called the M1A3 sometime around 2018.

However, in the long term, the Abrams needs to be replaced, one
senior Army armor officer said. The 1970s-era design is at its limit for
upgrades. The tank is all but tapped out for space, weight and power,
he said. As currently envisioned, the Abrams will stay in service past
2050—by which time the design will be more than seventy years old.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world continues to modernize their armor.

Dave Majumdar has been covering defense since 2004. He currently
writes for the U.S. Naval Institute, Aviation Week and The Daily Beast,
among others. Majumdar previously covered national security issues at
Flight International, Defense News and C4ISR Journal. Majumdar studied
Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary and is a student of naval
history.

Russian War Games Spill Secrets, Spur Neighbors; 'Scared the Hell Out of NATO'

Russian jets probing NATO
airspace and supersized war drills are spilling Kremlin military secrets
and scaring European nations into stiffening their armed forces.

Allied jets "have been scrambled
over 400 times" this year to intercept Russian planes -- a 50 percent
rise over 2013, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General
Jens Stoltenberg said yesterday. A report by the European Leadership
Network, a London-based security research group, termed the incidents "a
highly disturbing picture of violations of national airspace" and
"narrowly avoided mid-air collisions."

Yet there are benefits for NATO.

"Clearly,
every time we come into contact with Russian forces and every time we
see their tactics and how they deploy, we do learn about them," U.S. Air
Force General Philip Breedlove, the 28-member NATO's top military
commander, said in Tallinn on Nov. 19. "They are just happening more
often and occasionally, the size of the activities is larger."

A worsening standoff is pitting Europe and the U.S. against Russia over Ukraine
in the biggest crisis since the Cold War's end 25 years ago. Even
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier -- a persistent
proponent of dialog -- said on Nov. 18 after shuttle diplomacy in Kiev
and Moscow, that he sees little reason for optimism.

‘Scared' NATO

"The
rapid mobilization of 20,000 to 40,000 Russian troops at the Ukrainian
border scared the hell out of NATO," Karl-Heinz Kamp, academic director
at the German government's Federal Academy for Security Policy in
Berlin, said by phone.

Russian
President Vladimir Putin said the U.S. wants "not to humiliate, but to
subjugate" Russia, in remarks at a Nov. 18 meeting of his People's Front
party supporters in Moscow. "We
had such brilliant politicians like Nikita Khrushchev, who hammered the
desk with his shoe at the United Nations," Putin said in an Oct. 24
speech. "And the whole world, primarily the United States, and NATO
thought: this Nikita is best left alone, he might just go and fire a
missile."

Monitoring drills and Russian aircraft flying along
NATO or Finnish and Swedish airspace is yielding intelligence on command
and control, communications and tactics, said Lukasz Kulesa, research
director of the ELN in London and former deputy head of Poland's
National Security Bureau that advises the Polish president. Non-NATO
members Finland and Sweden upgraded their alliance ties in September.

‘Complex Deployments'

"A
Russian mission that sent planes on the same day to the Baltic, the
North Sea and the Black Sea tells us what Russian capabilities have
become," Kulesa said by phone. "It gives us a much better understanding
of Russian readiness and their ability to perform more complex
deployments."

Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Moscow-based Center
for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies and a member of the Russian
Defense Ministry's Public Council, said equipment being used in drills
and missions is well-known to NATO. "Russia
is not at risk of revealing any secret information to NATO by
conducting so many intensive drills and flights," Pukhov said in an
interview. "Russia can keep real secrets quite well, as proven by the
surprise of the Crimea operation."

Raised Spending

After
suffering initial setbacks in the 2008 Georgia War, Russia has
increased spending on its armed forces. The Kremlin increased military
spending by 50 percent since 2005 while NATO has cut spending by 20
percent, according to NATO chief Stoltenberg.

"In 2008, Russian
generals commanded their soldiers from Moscow in the war by running
outside the Defense Ministry and calling them by cellphone. The lessons
were learnt," said Pukhov, who co-authored a book about military aspects
of the Ukraine crisis titled Brothers Armed.

NATO,
at its Sept. 4-5 Wales summit, shored up its eastern defenses against
Russia as the U.S., which makes up two-thirds of alliance military
spending, urged European allies to pay more. The alliance agreed to
rotate more troops through eastern Europe and to set up a 5,000-soldier
rapid-reaction force. The Baltic states are bolstering their
armed forces with Estonia vowing more troops on its border with Russia
after a security officer was snatched and taken to Moscow.

NATO Target

Estonia,
which already meets NATO's military spending target of 2 percent of
gross domestic product, plans to raise spending to 2.05 percent next
year. Latvia and Lithuania -- both now spending less than 1 percent --
aim to reach the goal by 2020. Alliance
states including Denmark, Poland and Germany also plan to increase
defense spending, though in the case of Germany only from 2016. Germany
spends about 1.3 percent of gross domestic product on the military.

Denmark is poised to spend more than $4 billion in its biggest air defense upgrade on either Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)'s
F-35, Boeing Co. (BA)'s F-18 Super Hornet or Typhoon fighters, built by
the Eurofighter consortium of BAE Systems Plc (BA/), Airbus Group NV
(AIR) and Italy's Finmeccanica SpA. (FNC)

Poland, which shares
borders with both Russia and Ukraine, will choose suppliers for
helicopters and an air-defense system within a year as it begins a $27
billion program to overhaul the military and replace Soviet-era military
equipment, Defense Minister Tomasz Siemoniak said in an Oct. 24
interview. It's also bringing forward purchases of attack helicopters,
drones and missiles for Lockheed F-16 jets.

‘Wake-Up Call'

Charly
Salonius-Pasternak, a security expert at the Finnish Institute of
International Affairs in Helsinki, termed Russia's moves "quite a
wake-up call" that makes it impossible for Finnish or Swedish
politicians "who want to be taken seriously" to dismiss Russia's buildup
as low-level rearming. "Russia's armed forces can do things
that they couldn't do 10 years ago," he said in an interview. "Russia
has a much better ability to transport large units, long distances and
have them arrive combat ready."

That's triggered a debate in both Finland and Sweden on whether to join NATO. Putin,
whose military has taken control of or holds territory that under
international law belongs to Moldova and Georgia as well as annexing
Ukraine's Crimea in March, noted in his Oct. 24 Valdai speech that when
Prussian statesman Otto von Bismarck first appeared in the European
arena in the 19th century "they found him dangerous because he spoke his
mind."

Jerusalem Post: With the annexation of Crimea, Turkey faces a stronger and bolder Russian naval power in the Black Sea

With the annexation of Crimea, Turkey faces a stronger and bolder
Russian naval power in the Black Sea. A resurgent Russia may be tempted
to exploit its temporary naval dominance to alter current Black Sea
energy exploitation and transportation arrangements more in its favor
and to the detriment of Turkey and its partners in the Caucasus. The
politically motivated stoppage of Turkey’s National Warship Project’s
production schedule has created a window of vulnerability in Turkey’s
Black Sea naval defenses in the face of rapidly rising Russian naval
power.
Background:

The $3 billion “National Warship” Project,
known by its Turkish abbreviation MILGEM, seeks to upgrade the Turkish
fleet by replacing and augmenting its older foreign-made warships with
eight domestically produced Ada-class anti-submarine warfare corvettes
and subsequently four intermediate-class TF 100 frigates. After gaining
experience from the building of the slightly larger but more lethal TF
100 anti-air warfare frigates, Turkey then intends to build a series
of TF 2000 frigates. Double the size of the TF 100, the TF 2000
anti-air warfare frigate will significantly advance the Turkish fleet’s
transformation into a blue-water navy.

Aside from being an
intermediate phase for the development of the TF 2000, the TF 100
frigates are of present vital importance as replacements for the
German-made Meko 200 frigates that form an essential component of
Turkey’s force projection in the Black Sea. The TF 100 frigates will be
the first Turkish vessels to carry the American-manufactured RIM-162
Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) system capable of countering the
current generation of supersonic anti-ship missiles.

Prior to
Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the head of Turkey’s Undersecretariat of
Defense Industries Murat Bayar publicly acknowledged the need to
replace the Meko 200 frigates with the ESSM-equipped TF 100s by 2020.

However,
in September 2013, upon the commissioning of the TCG Büyükada, the
second of MILGEM’s eight Ada-class corvettes, the Turkish government
abruptly canceled RMK Marine’s contract to build the remaining six
corvettes. A subsidiary the Turkish conglomerate Koç Holding A.Ş., the
cancellation of RMK Marine’s contract appears to be part of Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s political vendetta against the Koç
family for providing assistance to anti-Erdogan protesters from a
Koç-owned Istanbul hotel during the summer 2013 Gezi Park
demonstrations.

The next two corvettes will be produced by
Turkey’s national shipyard while the government evaluates bids for the
building of the four remaining corvettes. Despite Undersecretary Bayar’s
optimistic forecasts that the government’s cancellations will delay
the production schedule for the Ada-class corvettes by only one year,
the cascade effect of the production stoppage in setting back the
building of the TF 100 frigates, as well as the subsequent TF 2000s,
has created a four- to eight-year window of vulnerability for Turkey in
the Black Sea vis-à-vis a resurgent Russia.

Turkey’s strategic
vulnerability was not anticipated because of the view in Turkish policy
circles that Turkey enjoys a relative parity with Russia in the Black
Sea. However, the approximate parity exists only when Russia’s Black
Sea Fleet is matched against all the major assets of the Turkish navy.
Prior to the Crimean conflict, Russia’s Black Sea fleet consisted of 24
major surface combatants and one diesel submarine while Turkey’s major
naval assets consist of approximately 24 surface combatants and 14
submarines. The parity is illusory as it is unlikely that Turkey would
be able to deploy all or most of its naval assets in a Black Sea
conflict.

Turkey’s ability to deter Russian assertiveness in
what Moscow regards as its greater Black Sea sphere of influence,
including the eastern Mediterranean and the Caucasus, was already
questionable. As Russia’s Black Sea Fleet disposed of Georgia’s
miniscule navy during the 2008 Russo-Georgian War, Ankara passively
watched the Russian military destroy Turkey’s infrastructure
investments in Georgia. Turkey’s supposed naval parity did not afford
Ankara any significant policy options.

Indeed, Ankara revealed
its reluctance to provoke Moscow into challenging the Montreux
Convention, the 1936 treaty granting Ankara exclusive control over the
Bosphorous Straits and the Dardanelles and restricting the transit of
heavy warships through this strategic Black Sea-Eastern Mediterranean
access corridor.

Implications:

With the
annexation of Crimea, Turkey faces a stronger and bolder Russian naval
power in the Black Sea. Russia now possesses the Ukrainian navy’s
submarine and several, if not most, of Ukraine’s 11 major surface
combatants. Even without the Ukraine’s naval assets, Russia’s own new
additions to its Black Sea Fleet will enable Moscow to dominate the
region. Russia recently put to sea the first of its six Admiral
Grigorovich-class frigates. All six frigates are designated for service
in the Black Sea Fleet.

Larger and more advanced than Turkey’s
four modified Meko 200 Barbaros-class frigates, each of the six Admiral
Grigorovich-class frigates will be the first vessels equipped with the
state-of-the-art, supersonic Shtil-1 Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) air
defense system. Moscow expects all six frigates to be in service in the
Black Sea Fleet by the end of 2016. Turkey’s now delayed TF 100
frigates, slated to carry the ESSM system, would be the only Turkish
vessels with a comparable SAM capability.

Within the same 2016
timeframe, Russia will also add six newly improved Kilo-class
diesel-electric submarines to its Black Sea Fleet ahead of Turkey’s
deployment of an equivalent number of Ada-class anti-submarine
corvettes. These two Russian procurement programs alone will quickly
tilt the balance of naval forces in Russia’s favor, giving Russia a
significant strategic advantage for a window of four to eight years
depending on the pace of Turkey’s resumed production schedule.

In
addition, Russia is in the process of acquiring two French-made
Mistral-class amphibious assault ships, to be named the Vladivostok and
Sevastapol, the latter being the namesake of the Russian Black Sea
Fleet’s base in Crimea. The amphibious assault ships are helicopter
carriers that can accommodate 16 attack helicopters as well as 13 battle
tanks and 450 combat soldiers.

A Mistral-class helicopter
carrier in the Black Sea Fleet would provide Russia with unprecedented
power projection capability in its greater Black Sea region. Russia’s
recent announcement that it has no plans to deploy either of the
helicopter carriers in the Black Sea may simply constitute a temporary
measure by Moscow to assuage French sensibilities in order to ensure
that France does not rescind the sale as a result of Moscow’s
annexation of Crimea. Turkey cannot discount the likely possibility that
the Sevastapol will serve at the Black Sea Fleet base after which it
was named.

Russia’s reassertion of naval power in the Black Sea
has already been accompanied by Moscow’s first action to change the
status quo in relation to Black Sea energy exploitation. With the
formal annexation of Crimea, Ukraine’s Black Sea Oil and Gas company,
ChronomorNaftohaz, was made into a whole-owned subsidiary of the
Russian state-controlled joint-stock company Gazprom. Between the
acquisition of ChronomorNaftohaz itself and Gazprom’s now exclusive
license for all offshore energy development in Crimea’s continental
shelf, the Russian energy giant has acquired an estimated $50 billion in
capital assets.

Turkey’s national oil and gas company TPAO has
itself spent $2.5 billion on offshore energy exploration in Turkey’s
continental shelf. Current estimates predict Turkey’s exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) in the Black Sea contains 10 billion barrels of
crude oil and two trillion cubic meters of natural gas. However as
ultra deep-water wells are drilled in the region, more hydrocarbon
resources may be discovered. Even if Russia, whose continental shelf
now projects from Crimea and therefore closer to Turkey, does not
attempt to dispute the demarcation of Turkey’s EEZ, Turkey’s drilling
platforms can no longer be defended as easily from Russian warships.

Of
greater concern for Ankara is the more likely possibility that Russia
may use Turkey’s window of vulnerability to alter the status quo in
relation to the transport of natural gas through Russia’s “South
Stream” gas pipeline. The Russia-to-Bulgaria pipeline had been routed
through Turkey’s territorial waters to avoid the Ukraine’s EEZ.
Russia’s annexation of Crimea renders this longer and more expensive
route unnecessary and may lead Moscow to abrogate this very lucrative
agreement for Turkey.

Moreover, Moscow may seek to affect the
development of the Trans-Anatolian Pipeline intended to transport
Azerbaijani natural gas to Europe via Georgia and Turkey. To prevent
the breaking of its stranglehold over gas exports to Europe, Russia may
resume its simmering conflict with Georgia or even expand the use of
military pressure to Azerbaijan. Ankara would have fewer options to
block such an exercise of Russian power, as Turkey is now in a weaker
relative position than during the time of the 2008 Russo-Georgian war.

Conclusions:

The
politically motivated stoppage of the MILGEM’s production schedule has
created a window of vulnerability in Turkey’s Black Sea naval defenses
in the face of rapidly rising Russian naval power. The delayed
production of the Ada-class anti-submarine corvettes will put Turkey at a
disadvantage relative to Russia’s imminent deployment of a new fleet
of Black Sea submarines. Russia’s Black Sea Fleet will also possess six
Admiral Grigorovich-class frigates capable of countering supersonic
anti-ship missiles while Turkey will lack the comparable capability
because of the setback to MILGEM’s four TF 100 frigates.

Until
Turkey can build and deploy these naval assets, Ankara’s deterrent
capability has eroded and Russia will dominate the Black Sea.
Exercising sea control, Moscow can more easily deploy its newly
acquired Mistral-class helicopter carrier to stage amphibious assault
operations against other Black Sea littoral states including Georgia
and Azerbaijan.

Having taken control of Ukraine’s offshore oil
and natural gas operations, Moscow will likely attempt to alter
regional energy transport arrangements in Russia’s favor while Rusia
still enjoys naval dominance. With Moscow’s annexation of Crimea,
Russia no longer needs to route its “South Stream” gas pipeline through
Turkish waters to avoid Ukraine’s EEZ. Moscow may attempt to cancel
its agreement with Ankara and reroute the pipeline through Crimea’s
continental shelf, resulting in a considerable revenue loss for Turkey.

Until
Ankara can rectify the gap in naval capabilities created by MILGEM’s
delays, Turkey will not be able to defend its national interests
adequately as Russia attempts to reestablish its sphere of influence in
the greater Black Sea region. The author is a Fellow at the
Shalem College, Jerusalem, and at the Middle East and Asia Units of the
Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at Hebrew
University. Dr. Tanchum teaches in the Departments of Middle Eastern
History and East Asian Studies of Tel Aviv University.

This
article was first published in the Turkey Analyst
(www.turkeyanalyst.org), a biweekly publication of the Central
Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program Joint Center.

Hundreds of new Russian aircraft, tanks and missiles are rolling off
assembly lines. Russian jets roar through European skies under NATO's
wary eye. Tens of thousands of troops take part in war games showing off
the military's readiness for all-out war. The muscle flexing suggests that Russia's economic woes so far are
having no impact on the Kremlin's ambitious military modernization
program.

Most Russian economic sectors face a 10 percent cut this year as
Russia heads into recession. The military budget, meanwhile, rose by 33
percent to about 3.3 trillion rubles (some $50 billion). The buildup
reflects President Vladimir Putin's apparent readiness to raise the ante
in a showdown with the West over Ukraine — but it is unclear whether
Russia can afford the modernization drive amid slumping oil prices and
Western sanctions.

The new Russian military doctrine, endorsed by Putin in December,
names NATO as a top threat to Russia and lays out a response to what the
Kremlin sees as the alliance's expansion into Russia's sphere of
interests. In the Ukraine crisis, Moscow for the first time demonstrated
its new capacity for what experts call "hybrid" warfare, a combination
of military force with a degree of deniability, sleek propaganda and
political and economic pressure.

It is not only in Crimea — the strategic peninsula that Russia
annexed from Ukraine — that the nation's 1-million strong military is
beefing up its presence. Russia is also reviving Soviet-era airfields
and opening new military bases in the Arctic. Last fall the military
rattled sabers by briefly deploying state-of-the art missiles to
Russia's westernmost Baltic exclave — Kaliningrad — and it is planning
to send strategic bombers on regular patrols as far as the Caribbean and
the Gulf of Mexico.

The West first got a sense of Russia's revived military might during
last February's Crimea invasion. The U.S. and its NATO allies were
caught off guard when waves of Russian heavy-lift military transport
planes landed on the Black Sea peninsula days after the ouster of
Ukraine's former Moscow-friendly president, unloading special forces
which swiftly took over key facilities in the region and blocked
Ukrainian troops at their bases.

Dressed in unmarked uniforms and equipped with state-of-the art
weapons, the Russian troops were a far cry from a ragtag demoralized
force the military was just a few years ago. The Kremlin first claimed
they were local volunteers, but Putin recognized after the annexation
that they were Russian soldiers.

Another surprise for the West came a few weeks later, when well-organized groups of gunmen took over local government offices and police stations in several cities across Ukraine's mostly Russian-speaking eastern industrial heartland, triggering a rebellion that evolved into a full-scale war that killed more than 5,300 since April.

As fighting escalated in the east, the Russian military showed its
agility by quickly deploying tens of thousands troops near the border
with Ukraine. Ukraine and the West said that thousands of them crossed
into Ukraine, helping turn the tide in rebels' favor. The Kremlin denies
that, although it has acknowledged that Russian volunteers have joined
the insurgency.

Unlike the past, when the Russian military was filled through
unpopular conscription, the force has grown more professional and
motivated. Relatively high salaries have attracted an increasing number
of contract soldiers, whose number is set to exceed 350,000 this year
from 295,000 in 2014. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said that
by the end of this year all battalion tactical groups — the core units
in the Army, the Airborne Forces and the Marines — will be manned
entirely by professional soldiers.

And in sharp contrast to the early post-Soviet years, when combat
jets were grounded and navy vessels rusted dockside for lack of fuel,
the military has dramatically increased both the scope and frequency of
its drills. Ground forces conducted massive maneuvers near the Ukrainian
border involving tens of thousands of troops, while navy ships sailed
on regular missions and combat jets flew regular patrols near European
borders to probe NATO's defenses. The alliance said it intercepted
Russian aircraft more than 400 times last year and complained they posed
a danger to civilian flights.

In Crimea, Russia had leased a major naval base even before the
annexation. Now it has deployed dozens of combat jets, including
nuclear-capable long-range bombers, along with air defense missiles,
modern drones and other weapons. It is also preparing to dispatch more
troops there.

Another key priority for the military is the Arctic, where global rivalry for major untapped oil and gas reserves is intensifying as polar ice melts. The military has restored long-abandoned Soviet-era airfields and other bases in the region after two decades of neglect. It formed a separate Arctic command to oversee its troops in the region.

Russia's weapons modernization plan envisages spending 20 trillion
rubles on new weapons in 2011-2020. It produced some highly visible
results last year, with the military receiving the highest numbers of
new planes, missiles and armor since the 1991 Soviet collapse:

—Last year, the Russian armed forces obtained a record number of 38
nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles. This year they are
to get another 50, allowing the military to fulfill its ambitious goal
of replacing Soviet-built nuclear missiles, which are approaching the
end of their lifespan. Officials say the new ICBMs have the capacity to
penetrate any prospective missile defenses.

—In a major breakthrough, the Russian navy finally conducted a series
of successful test launches of the Bulava, a new submarine-based
intercontinental ballistic missile, proving its reliability after a long
and troublesome development. The navy already has two submarines
equipped with the Bulava, and is to commission a third one next year.
Five more are to follow.

—The ground forces are receiving large batches of Iskander missiles,
which are capable of hitting enemy targets up to 500 kilometers (310
miles away) with high precision. Russian officials said the missiles,
which can be equipped with a nuclear or conventional warhead, could be
used to target NATO's U.S.-led missile defense sites. In a show of
force, Iskanders were briefly deployed in December to the Kaliningrad
exclave bordering NATO members Poland and Lithuania.

—The Russian air force received more than 250 new planes and
helicopters last year and is set to receive more than 200 this year —
numbers unseen since Soviet times. They include new models such as Su-34
bombers, Su-35 fighter jets and Mi-28 helicopter gunships equipped with
sophisticated electronics and high-precision missiles.

—The Russian army this year is set to receive a new tank, which also
will be used as the basis for a lineup of other armored vehicles. The
model called Armata will be shown to the public during a Red Square
parade in May. It surpasses all Western versions in having a remotely
controlled cannon and a superior level of crew protection.

Its security enhanced by a new-look military, the Kremlin can be
expected to pursue a defiant course in Ukraine and may raise the stakes
further if the peace process fails. The threat for Putin — who has insisted that Russia will not be drawn
into a costly arms race with the West — is whether the massive military
buildup will stretch the nation's economic potential beyond the limit.

Despite such challenges, the Kremlin made it clear that it will not cut corners on defense. "The task set by the president not to allow anyone to get a military
advantage over Russia will be fulfilled no matter what," Defense
Minister Sergei Shoigu said at a meeting with the top brass last week.

Russia to deploy fifth-gen fighters, S-500 missiles in 2016

The fourth prototype Т-50 fifth generation jet fighter (RIA Novosti)

In 2016, the Russian military will start deploying
two advanced weapons, the fifth-generation fighter jet PAK FA and the
long-range surface-to-air missile systems S-500, chief of the Russian
Air Forces said. Lieutenant General
Viktor Bondarev gave an outline of his branch's modernization
plans, including the build-up of Arctic infrastructure, in a
radio interview with the Russian News Service station on
Sunday. The flight trials of PAK FA (T-50) will soon be over, and in 2016
the Air Force is planning to start commissioning the aircraft
into service, the general said. PAK FA is Russia's first fifth-generation fighter jet built by
the Sukhoi Corporation. So far five prototypes have been
completed and are undergoing various tests. The fighter is
scheduled to eventually replace Sukhoi Su-27s.“It took part in the [international pilot competition]
Aviadarts twice and performed aerobatic flights in pair. I
believe the aircraft has a brilliant future,” the general
said.

Another new addition to the ranks planned for 2016 is S-500, a
state-of-the-art long-range air defense system developed by Almaz
Antei, Bondarev said. The producer is finalizing new missiles for
the system, which would have advanced homing electronics. “The missiles will have a build-in intelligence system, which
will analyze the aerial and radar environment and take decisions
about its altitude, speed and direction of the flight,” the
general said. S-500 is an advanced version of S-400 with dedicated components
designed to intercept ballistic missiles at a height of up to 200
km. The system is expected to be able to shut down up to 10
incoming ballistic missiles simultaneously. It also has an
extended radar range compared to S-400.

Gen. Bondarev confirmed the previously reported schedule for the
development of PAK DA, a new Russian strategic bomber. So far
little has been made public about the aircraft, which is to
replace Tupolev Tu-95s and Tu-160s as the backbone of Russia's
aerial nuclear capability. It's rumored to be a sub-sonic flying
wing design and may have a new nuclear-capable cruise missile
developed for armament. The general confirmed that the Air Forces expect Tupolev to
produce first prototypes of PAK DA by the end of the decade and
launch series production in 2021-2022. In the meantime,
modernization programs for Tu-95s and Tu-160s are enough to keep
the Russian strategic bomber fleet in good shape and sufficient
for the renewed long-range flight missions, he said.

Arguably the biggest modernization effort required from the Air
Forces is focused on the Arctic infrastructure. Back in Soviet
times the military maintained a massive network of airfields and
radar stations in the north, but they were neglected in the years
following the USSR’s collapse. With rich Arctic resources
becoming more accessible and a potential for a conflict in the
area growing, the Russian military are rebuilding the Arctic
bases.

“We don't see any rivals in the Arctic now, but if a
challenge comes, we must be prepared to defend this region. The
presence in the Arctic will be increased,” General Bondarev
said.

Russia this year reopened the Temp airfield on Kotelny Island
north of eastern Siberia, the general announced. There are plans
to enlarge the bases in Tiksi, Alykel, Vorkuta and Anadyr. In the
future, full-strength divisions and regiments of the Russian Air
Force will be deployed in the north.

Russia has developed super-high-frequency gun capable of deactivating unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and the warheads of precision weapons at an impact range of ten kilometers which ensures 360 degrees of perimeter defense.Russia’s United Instrument Manufacturing Corporation (UIMC), part of Rostec Corporation, has announced that it developed a super-high-frequency gun for BUK missile systems. The newly-developed equipment is capable of deactivating the radio electronics of UAVs and the warheads of precision weapons, according to a representative of the corporation. The equipment, informally named the microwave gun, has been developed for the needs of Russia’s Defense Ministry and will be demonstrated during the closed part of Army-2015, an international event organized by the Russian Defense Ministry, the Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) and state technology corporation Rostec, which will be held on June 16-19. The UIMC representative has not revealed all the technical characteristics of the equipment but has mentioned that the impact range of the equipment is ten kilometers and that its defense perimeter is 360 degrees.“The new system is equipped with a high-power relativistic generator and reflector antenna, management and control system, and a transmission system which is fixed on the chassis of BUK surface-to-air missile systems. When mounted on a special platform, the ‘microwave gun’ is capable of ensuring perimeter defense at 360 degrees,” the representative said. The system is capable of out-of-band suppression of the radio electronic equipment of low-altitude aircraft and the assault elements of precision weapons. The gun is able to deactivate the equipment of aircraft and UAVs, and neutralize precision weapons. There are currently also plans to use the system for testing Russian military radio electronic systems against the impact of powerful super-high-frequency emission.

Russia will purchase at least 50 Tupolev Tu-160 “Blackjack”
heavy strategic bombers when the aircraft's production is renewed,
Russian Air Force Commander Col. Gen. Viktor Bondarev announced
Thursday. The Tu-160 strategic bombers will be produced simultaneously
with the country’s new fighter jets called PAK DA.

“The production of the aircraft will be restarted,” Russia’s TASS news agency quoted Bondarev as saying. "To cover all the outlay of the production, at least 50 aircraft will be purchased in course of time.”

ADVERTISING

According to Bondarev, the revival of the Tu-160 production
will not interfere with the production of the PAK DA aircraft, which is
expected to make its first flight in 2019. The PAK DA bombers are likely
to be part of the Russian Air Force in 2023-2025 and would replace the
existing fighter jets, including the Tu-160, Tu-22M3 “Backfire” and
Tu-95 “Bear.”

In late April, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu had
reportedly ordered the resumption of the production of Tu-160 bombers at
the Kazan aviation plant in the Republic of Tatarstan in the Volga
Federal District. The director of the Kazan aviation plant said Tuesday
that the modernization of 16 Tu-160 bombers is expected to be completed
in 2019, instead of 2020 as previously estimated, IHS Jane's Defence
Weekly reported.

According to the report, the modernization of Tu-160 bombers
includes two major phases. The first phase, which is now completed,
involves strengthening the aircraft’s nuclear armament to carry 12
conventional long-range cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs. The
second phase focuses on replacing the jet’s radar, electronic navigation
and communication systems, IHS Jane's Defence Weekly reported, adding
that the aircraft's engines will also be upgraded at a later date.

In addition to Tu-160 and PAK DA, Russia is also working on
its fifth-generation stealth fighter jet, known as PAK FA, which will
enter service in 2016. “We’re completing the aircraft tests and from 2017 they will be serially supplied,” Bondarev said,
according to TASS. The PAK FA jets “will not be in any way inferior to
US F-22 and F-35 fighters and will surpass them by all practical
parameters.”

If someone had the impression that the visit of Secretary of State John Kerry to the town of Sochi, followed by negotiations with Victoria Nuland, his deputy in Moscow, could be regarded as first steps in the direction of normalization of US-Russian relations, they would be deeply mistaken. In short, Washington, particularly the Obama administration, is trying to solve its problems at the expense or rather with the help of Russia, to ensure the victory of Hillary Clinton in the upcoming elections.

However, the United States continues to apply pressure on Russia, using a variety of different strategies. Special attention is now paid to Syria and the weakened regime of Bashar al-Assad in the face of a new armed assault against Damascus. The attempts to trade the support of Syria for a number of concessions on Ukraine and Crimea allegedly made by John Kerry failed. Then Americans attempted blackmail, which is the strategy of choice for Washington in the countries that resist its dictate. On May 19 the Russian embassy in Syria was shelled by militants, presumably Jaysh al-Islam, which resulted in one of the shells exploding in the main building of the diplomatic mission. Fortunately, there was nobody there in the room destroyed by the explosion. Immediately after the attack the State Department swiftly condemned this act of terrorism. But we all are well aware of the fact that the “southern front” operating in the suburbs of the Syrian capital is controlled by Jordan with a certain amount of US assistance, unlike the “northern front” guided by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The shelling of the Russian embassy – is clearly a signal to Russia that it should abandon its support of the Syrian regime.The White House continues to exploit the Iranian theme to dissuade Moscow supplying the Islamic Republic with S-300 air defense systems. But America didn’t even try to propose a fair exchange. Yet, Washington think tanks are well of aware of the fact that Moscow will no longer buy any of America’s fraudulent tricks, as happened a few years ago with the introduction of sanctions against Iran and the freezing of the contract to supply the S-300s. The US goal is clear and simple – to sow doubts in Tehran about the principal position of Russia on Iran, thus pushing Iranians to unnecessary concessions in discussions on the Iranian nuclear program.Another old trick has been the alleged desire of the GCC countries, including Saudi Arabia, to launch a full-scale cooperation with Russia, particularly in the coordination of global oil prices. The emissaries of the Arabian monarchies one by one have been visiting the Russian capital with handfuls of promises. Naturally, none of those were planned to be implemented, as they are designed to lure Russia’s leadership into a trap. But this lesson has already been learned as well, especially in the times when the former Emir of Qatar Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani and Saudi Prince Bandar were eager to promise billions of dollars of investment in the Russian economy, the purchase of Russian weapons, and lucrative contracts, yet no concrete steps followed.Now a new player is being used – Turkey, which seems to be seriously offended by Russia’s position on the Armenian Genocide. Turkey, for which the question of recognition or non-recognition of the genocide is the most painful of all, instantly responded to the fact that on 24 April, Vladimir Putin visited the Tsitsernakaberd Memorial, built in memory of the genocide victims of 1915. Turkish officials said that there could be no justification for this visit, three days later, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan “remembered” events regarding the Crimea. The Turkish leader said that Russia should account for their actions in Crimea and Ukraine before condemning the massacre of Armenians by the Ottomans in 1915.Washington was eager to request even more anti-Russian statements from Turkey, including those relating to the Crimea, that followed one after the other. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, said that the recent unofficial Turkish delegation that was visiting the Crimea, found signs of human rights violations. Such an assessment on the situation on the ground from Cavusoglu looks rather strange, since they contradict statements made by members of the delegation themselves. On April 29 the head of the unofficial delegation Mehmet Uskyul said that he is satisfied with the treatment of Crimean Tatars on the peninsula. Even more dramatic statements were made by Turkey’s Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu on May 14 at a meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers. According to this Turkish official “The illegal annexation of the Crimea can not be tolerated”. The Turkish prime minister also urged NATO states to support Ukraine so it could better ensure the security of its own people. Ahmet Davutoğlu went as far as stressing that NATO states should not forget about the suffering of the people of the Crimea…Ankara canceled a regular meeting of the Russian-Turkish Cooperation Council and the arrival of Sergey Lavrov to Antalya that was scheduled on May 16. Formally – under the pretext of difficulties caused by the forthcoming parliamentary elections, after which a new government will be formed. But all that buzz can negatively affect a project of fundamental importance for Russia – the “Turkish Stream”, which couldn’t make the United States any more happier.Another front of this anti-Russian campaign was opened in Macedonia. The United States is actively advancing a possible regime change in Skopje to counter Russian influence. It’s also important to note that the “Turkish Stream” would stretch across Macedonian soil. That’s what Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said last week about those events: “Objectively speaking, the events in Macedonia are unfolding against the background of the government’s refusal to join the policy of sanctions against Russia and the vigorous support Skopje gave to the Turkish Stream gas pipeline project, to which many people oppose, both in Brussels and across the ocean. So we can’t help but feeling that there is some sort of connection here.”In fact, Washington has tried to stage a “color revolution” by organizing mass demonstrations launched by the local opposition. Even the country’s Albanian minority, which has nothing in common with Macedonian opposition came out to the streets to support rallies in the capital, Skopje. For Moscow this looks all too familiar. Events are moving in the same direction as they were in Ukraine in 2013 and 2014, when the corrupt regime of Viktor Yanukovych was ousted during mass demonstrations organized by the United States and Poland.So the latest maneuvers of American diplomacy – is nothing but a smokescreen designed to hide the true intentions of the Obama administration. Washington’s strategic goal remains the same – to weaken Russia by all means necessary and break it apart from those countries which are engaged in cooperation with Moscow. Therefore there’s no trusting US promises or even reaching deals with them. All this smooth-talking is a mere trap in the hope that Russian pro-Western liberals might convince President Putin that the White House is sincere. But US think tanks have missed one thing – “Ukrainian lessons” have not been lost on the Kremlin.

A recent United Nations report says that nearly half a million Ukrainians
have fled the country since April. The fact that families run from a
war zone is heartbreaking but hardly unexpected. The disturbing part
lies in the details — of the roughly 454,000 people who had fled Ukraine by the end of October, more than 387,000 went to Russia.
Most of those who fled were Russian speakers from the east, but this
still raises a sobering question: If this is a conflict between Ukraine
and Russia, why did so many Ukrainians choose to cast their lot with the
enemy?

Moscow’s
denials of involvement in eastern Ukraine are, of course, absurd: It is
clear that the separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk are equipped,
reinforced and trained by Russians. That said, if Vladimir V. Putin
had tried sending unmarked commandos to set up sham republics in
western Ukraine, where anti-Russian sentiment runs high, his men would
have been returned to the Kremlin in body bags. Yes, Mr. Putin is
brewing unrest in the east, but he is brewing with local ingredients. He
is connecting with the population using a language they speak and a
symbolism they understand.

The
unpalatable reality is that a significant portion of eastern Ukrainians
— the very people on the ground living and suffering through this
conflict — distrust Kiev and the West and at least tacitly support
Russia and the separatists. And frankly, that isn’t surprising.

Last
month the Ukrainian president, Petro O. Poroshenko, decided to freeze
government pensions and cut off funding for schools and hospitals in the
eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. Unfortunately, the separatist
thugs fighting there don’t rely on food stamps to buy weapons — they
get them from Russia. All that Mr. Poroshenko accomplished was giving
Mr. Putin the “proof” to tell the starving pensioners of the region:
“See — the West doesn’t care if you die.” This is a sentiment that is
growing stronger and stronger, according to reports coming out of the
region.

Equally
awful is Kiev’s decision to maintain a relationship with the Azov
battalion, an ultranationalist paramilitary group of around 400 men that
uses Nazi salutes and insignia. To anyone familiar with eastern
Ukraine’s bloody history during World War II,
allowing the Azov battalion to fight in the region is a bit like
sponsoring a Timothy McVeigh Appreciation Night in Oklahoma City. It
does nothing but infuriate the local population and provide Mr. Putin
with yet another opportunity to shed the mantle of invader and position
himself as a protector.

The
impact of World War II, or, as most people there call it, The War, on
eastern Ukrainian consciousness cannot be understated. My childhood in
the northeast city of Kharkov (now called Kharkiv) in the 1980s was
surrounded by The War, 40 years after it ended. Every family — Russian,
Ukrainian, Roma, Jewish — had ghost relatives who had vanished or
perished. One of my earliest memories is of asking my father where the
mortar holes pockmarking the outside of our apartment block had come
from; one of my father’s earliest memories is of fleeing Kharkov mere
hours before the Nazis invaded the city. Eastern Ukrainians today,
especially the older generations, respond to swastikas and wolfsangel
runes — Nazi symbols now used by Ukrainian ultranationalists — about as
well as African-Americans respond to burning crosses.

Mr.
Putin and the Russian news media say that western Ukrainians in Mr.
Poroshenko’s government are neo-Nazis. The West denies these claims,
averring that there are no neo-Nazi elements in the Kiev government.
Both are wrong. The Kiev government and the armies fighting in eastern
Ukraine contain a small minority of neo-Nazi ultranationalists. To
eastern Ukrainians, however, even one is too many.

Washington
and the Western media have largely ignored the negative ramifications
of Kiev’s actions. The State Department has said nothing about the
pension freeze’s effect on the local population of eastern Ukraine;
reports of the Azov battalion’s use of Nazi insignia have not been
addressed in any meaningful manner. Mr. Putin’s greatest weapon of all
may be the West’s refusal to speak directly to the people of eastern
Ukraine. When I talk to family friends still living in Kharkiv, they ask
me, “Why does the West label us as enemies?”

It
seems the West has forgotten the lessons of its own history. At the end
of the Cold War in 1989, Communism collapsed, leaving unrest and
uncertainty in its wake. In that moment of chaos, the people of Eastern
Europe turned their gazes westward. This happened not by accident, but
because of decades of public diplomacy — from “Ich bin ein Berliner” to
“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” to nightly broadcasts by Voice of
America and Radio Free Europe, which constantly reassured those behind
the Iron Curtain that the West had not forgotten them. That year my
family was one of many that fled eastern Ukraine for Vienna, and later
the United States.

In
2014, the people of eastern Ukraine find themselves in an exponentially
more horrible and deadly situation. They will turn to whoever provides
them with bread and security and respect for their language and culture.
They are looking, and more and more it seems they’re turning, eastward.

Everything began in November 2013 when
former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign the EU
Partnership Agreement. Currently despite the ceasefire signed in Minsk,
the guns have not fallen silent in the eastern parts of Ukraine where
the death toll is some six thousand people. Now the shadow of a second
Cold War has fallen over the region.

Toward a New Cold War?

Recently the U.S. Army sent heavy
weapons and military equipment to Lithuania on the Russian border. It
was also announced that the U.S. and NATO countries had planned four
separate maneuvers in Ukraine, together with bilateral and multilateral
maneuvers in Poland and the Baltic countries.

In the face of the developments in the
Baltic area, Russia initiated a giant exercise in 19 wide areas with the
simultaneous participation of 8,000 troops in bases in Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Armenia.
Special forces in the Russian Central Military District began a
five-day exercise in the region of Sverdlovsk, where more than 600
troops and 300 armored vehicles took part. In the Black Sea, the missile carrying amphibious ship Bora,
the warship Ivanovets and R-109 boats carried out a simulated attack
using real rockets. A continuing exercise by NATO warships in the Black
Sea at the same time led to a rise in tensions. The message from both
sides was clear; 'we are in charge in the region.'

A statement from Moscow while the
exercises were going on revealed the full scale of the tension. Putin
announced that he was annulling the European Conventional Forces
Agreement (ECFA), the most important document signed at the end of the
Cold War between Russia and the West. NATO described this as a worrying
development. Tensions between Russia and the West are
again rising to resemble those during the Cold War. Both sides clearly
need to take steps to repair the damage without delay. Blocs are forming
fast, with the U.S. and the EU countries lining up against Russia.

Sanctions Are No Solution

Experts from the Carnegie Center state
that; "Sanctions will create a perception among the Russians that they
are under constant pressure from the U.S. This stimulates patriotism and
nationalism and also forges a foreign enemy image embodied by America. New sanctions would only solidify this perception and consolidate the government"1. Indeed, the level of support for Putin's policies has risen by 5-10% each month, reaching 88% in October 2014.

The fact is that both the Russians and objective thinkers do not believe that Moscow is seeking to build a new Soviet Empire. Putin regards NATO's Open Door policy as a violation of the promises given to them following the break-up of the Warsaw Pact.
The Russians therefore think that Russia has a natural and legitimate
right to protect itself and the surrounding area against the plan to
surround Russia by way of Georgia, Ukraine and the Baltic countries and
to isolate it. In a statement in the early days of the Minsk
negotiations, Putin said that their aim was not to wage war but that
they would not accept a world order in which the U.S. was the only
leader.

The EU countries, being encouraged
towards polarization under pressure from the U.S., are aware that
prolonging tensions with Russia will wreak serious harm to their own
economies. For example Germany, the largest economy in Europe, has more than 6,000 companies doing business with Russia,
with investments of more than 20 billion Euros made over the last 20
years. These sanctions are having a serious effect on Germany, the main
pillar of the EU economy, as they are on other European countries. Not
for nothing did Merkel make intense efforts during the Minsk talks to
bring about a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. Merkel was aware of
the need to halt the $21 billion losses suffered in the EU countries
because of the crisis. It was no surprise that Holland would support
Merkel in the talks. France, which ended 2014 in a position of almost
zero growth, is currently in the unenviable position of being the sick
man of Europe. Replacing the French Economics Minister did not stop
France, with the world's fifth largest economy, taking a step back in
that ranking. The Dutch demand a relaxation of the sanctions against
Russia stemming from its largest oil companies being active in Russia.

On the other hand, European countries
are 90% dependent on Russian natural gas. Europe has no way of
responding to retaliation by Russia in the form of cutting off natural
gas supplies in the long term in the face of the sanctions. Russia is in turn looked to deepen
relations with Asian countries in order to show that it is not dependent
on the West. The 30-year natural gas sales agreement signed with China,
estimated to be worth some $400 billion, is one outcome of this Russian
search for alternative markets. In addition to China, negotiations over
new energy projects are also taking place with Egypt and Turkey.

It is therefore expected that Moscow, which is determined to use all the cards it holds against the sanctions, will not be making concessions on such fundamental issues as Crimea.
So it is essential for both sides to take the requisite steps for
establishing lasting peace and security while the road is still near. A
determination of the position of Ukraine, the main fault line between
the two sides, will play a critical role in resolving the crisis. Only
an independent Ukraine that is controlled neither by Russia nor by the
West, yet that is inclusive of both without excluding either side, and
that can play the role of a buffer zone in a temporary process, can
unite the two sides on common ground.

The Cold War was of no benefit to
anyone. A second Cold War will mean nothing but destruction and
disaster, and it is therefore essential for world peace for NATO and
Russia to adopt balanced policies of reconciliation.

Harun Yahya:The writer has authored more than
300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science.
He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com

The crisis in Ukraine has
reached an impasse. The cease-fire signed in Minsk, Belarus,
in September never really took hold, but at least it provided a cover for
efforts to reduce the level of fighting and focus on stabilizing and reforming
the Ukrainian economy as a prelude to a serious, long-term search for a
resolution of the crisis. Now even the fig leaf of cease-fire is gone. Russian
armored vehicles are rolling into eastern Ukraine
— disowned, of course, by Moscow.

Gunfire is exchanged constantly in and
around Donetsk, and Kiev has basically disowned residents of
territories claimed by separatists by cutting most government services,
benefits and pensions. And though elections to the Ukrainian Parliament on Oct.
26 brought in a new, pro-Western legislature, Kiev is still far from forming a government
or producing a viable program of reforms.

The United
States and the European Union have made clear, and
correctly so, that they hold President Vladimir Putin of Russia largely
responsible for this state of affairs. He was snubbed at the Group of 20 meeting
in Brisbane, Australia. Then Chancellor Angela
Merkel of Germany, once the
European leader deemed most cautious in relations with Moscow, assailed him for reviving a Cold War
atmosphere 25 years after the Berlin Wall fell.

There is no question that by annexing
Crimea and arming separatists in eastern Ukraine, Mr. Putin has done great
damage to East-West relations — and to his country, which finds itself isolated
and in economic trouble. The decision on Monday by the European Union to add
more separatist leaders to the list of Mr. Putin’s allies barred from Europe
may be largely symbolic, but along with the cold reception in Brisbane, it does
let the Russian leader know that the West is not about to let him off the hook.

That said, it is important to
acknowledge that officials in Kiev,
and more specifically President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy
Yatsenyuk, have responsibilities they must live up to. Ukraine has
been plagued by corruption since it became independent, and the current crisis
has made it even more imperative for the leaders to form a government and come
up with a credible economic and political strategy.

The Ukrainian economy is in terrible
shape — the currency has lost almost half its value against the dollar in 2014,
the industrial centers of Donetsk
and Luhansk are in separatist hands, coal mines have shut down. The
International Monetary Fund has provided emergency aid, but the hard fact is
that the European Union and the United States
cannot be expected to make substantial commitments until Ukraine
provides a clear reform plan and priorities for outside investment. Johannes
Hahn, the new European Union commissioner for enlargement, is right to insist
that the union will not hold a donors’ conference without this.

In addition to an economic strategy, Kiev needs to prepare a
plan for loosening central control in a way that might satisfy residents of the
eastern provinces. The decision by President Poroshenko to cut government
benefits and pensions to residents of areas under the control of Kremlin-backed
separatists, though understandable in the circumstances, has left those unable
to flee feeling betrayed by Kiev, creating a vacuum for Moscow to fill.

There is no question that ordering
painful reforms when a country is already on its knees is asking a lot. That is
why it is imperative that Western leaders make clear that they will give Kiev substantial
assistance only after it embarks on a serious program of economic and political
reform. After all, that was what the Ukrainians who took to the streets in
December 2013 fought for.

As Russian forces consolidate their gains
in Ukraine over the flat protests of Western leaders, the specter of
Russian revanchism is keeping much of Eastern Europe on edge. But
lumbering tanks and legions of insta-separatists aren’t the only
concern. Ukraine isn’t Russia’s only target. Perhaps most alarming are the warning signs going off in Georgia, a
steadfast Euro-Atlantic partner where a pro-Western political consensus
has long been a foreign-policy calling card. A long-standing opponent of
Russian military adventurism, Georgia sought escape velocity from
Russian regional dominance by courting membership in Euro-Atlantic
structures and earned a reputation as an enthusiastic and credible Western partner. But

Western
quiescence in the face of Russian territorial aggression is starting to
have an effect. After decades of acrimony in which Georgians have
watched Russian proxies occupy 20 percent of their territory and ethnically cleanse
some 300,000 of their compatriots, certain groups are starting to ask
if maintaining close ties to the West is worth all the loss.
Increasingly, Georgians are beginning to think that it isn’t. The groups spearheading Russian influence operations
in Georgia fly beneath the international radar under the cloak of
local-language media and the oft-repeated surety of pro-Western
sentiment. But they can be seen protesting in Tbilisi streets, preaching
in Georgian churches, and holding improbably well-funded campaign
rallies ahead of elections. The evidence shows that Russian influence in
Georgia is growing stronger. (In the photo, a Stalin impersonator poses
at a memorial service for the Soviet dictator in his Georgian hometown
of Gori.)

But at Washington roundtables and in private conversations, Western
officials and experts tend to downplay the possibility of
Russian-exported propaganda taking root in Georgia. The root of this
complacency is tied to regular polling
from the U.S.-funded International Republican Institute and the
National Democratic Institute (NDI) that has consistently showed public
support for Euro-Atlantic integration at between 60 and 70 percent.
Successive governments have relied on this popular approval to justify
their Western-facing foreign-policy agendas. So support for Euro-Atlantic integration is broad. But is it deep?
Those who have spent time with ordinary Georgians say the reality, as is
often the case, is far more complex.

There, in a scene in the popular Georgian soap opera Chemi Tsolis Dakalebi (My Wife’s Best Friends),
revelers at a wedding reception are interrupted by an announcement that
Georgia has just been awarded a long-coveted “MAP” (membership action
plan), a prelude to NATO membership. The announcement shocks the crowd
into a stunned silence, which then gives way to raucous cheers. One
character, while clapping and celebrating along with the others, turns
to another partygoer and asks: “What’s a MAP?”

While the scene colorfully illuminates NATO’s outsized social, and
even civilizational, pull among Georgians, it also suggests a harsher
truth: that Georgian society’s Western moorings may be more emotive than
well-informed. The headline numbers from public opinion polls don’t
tell the whole story. Look deeper into the data, and the picture is much
more worrisome. According to an NDI poll last August,
integration with the West was at best a tertiary issue for Georgians.
Instead, “kitchen table” issues dominated respondents’ concerns, with
worries about jobs (63 percent) and poverty (32 percent) eclipsing other
issues. NATO and EU integration came in far behind at 10th and 17th,
respectively. And of 21 issues polled, Georgians picked NATO and EU
membership as the top issues the government spent too much time
discussing.

But most concerning, buried deep in the survey results, were signs of growing support for joining the Eurasian Union,
a Moscow-led EU “alternative.” A full 20 percent favored the idea of
Georgian membership. This percentage has risen steadily from 11 percent
in late 2013 to 16 percent in mid-2014. Who are these Georgians who
would surrender their country’s sovereignty to the same power that keeps
a steely grip on Georgian territory and carves other neighboring states
with impunity?

Part of the answer can be found in a budding segment of the
nongovernmental sector, consisting of innocuously named pro-Russian
groups like the “Eurasian Institute,” “Eurasian Choice,” and “The Earth
Is Our Home.” Many of these organizations pop in and out of existence as
needed — the “Peace Committee of Georgia” one week, something else the
next — but they are often tied to the same group of pro-Russian
ideologues and policy entrepreneurs who make regular pilgrimages to
Moscow and, according to Georgian officials in the ruling party and the
opposition, almost certainly receive Kremlin funding. Their common
message isn’t high-church Russian apologia or Soviet nostalgia, but
rather “Eurasianism” and “Orthodox civilization” — Kremlin shorthand for
Putinism. Appeals to Georgian social conservatism, economic
vulnerability, and lingering anger over past government abuses are
winning converts within a population increasingly impatient with
Georgia’s unrequited love affair with the West.

In mid-2014, Eurasianist groups made headlines for their raucous
opposition to an anti-discrimination bill making its way through the
Georgian parliament. Their opposition centered on language in the bill
banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which
opponents claimed was tantamount to promoting non-heterosexual
lifestyles. But they didn’t come to the protests alone — accompanying
the pro-Russian activists were unmistakably garbed clerics from the
Georgian Orthodox Church. The church, too, was nonplussed over the anti-discrimination bill and
called for language protecting sexual minorities to be ejected. One of
the oldest existing Christian churches in the world, the Georgian
Orthodox Church is both a touchstone for Georgian nationalism and
reliably polls as the most trusted institution in the country. But the
church’s common cause with the Eurasianists was not limited to tactical
alliances over anti-gay rhetoric. Although nominally in favor of
Georgian membership in the European Union, influential factions within
the Orthodox hierarchy openly stoke religious nationalism and express
admiration for Russia.

Today, church representatives are increasingly seen as a vanguard for
reactionary activity. In mid-2013, clergy members were on the front
lines of a horrifying anti-gay pogrom in central Tbilisi. Church officials have justified protests against and attacks on Georgian Muslims.
And church leaders have called the West “worse than Russia,” sometimes
describing the 2008 Russian invasion as a kind of heavenly intervention
against Western integration. Such language is echoed by Georgia’s
Eurasianist NGOs. The growing profile of pro-Russian organizations and the sharpening
anti-Western stance of the church is converging with a third leg in an
emerging pro-Russian triad: the revitalization of anti-Western political
parties. Since the 2012 change in power, pro-Russian
politicians have risen from the darkest margins of Georgian political
life into an increasingly viable political force.

Onetime pro-Western advocate turned pro-Russian political agitator
Nino Burjanadze has fashioned a political coalition aimed squarely at
breaking Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic consensus. In presidential and local
elections in 2013 and 2014, respectively, Burjanadze managed to get
about 10 percent of the vote, armed with Eurasianist rhetoric and fueled
by massive influxes of what was likely Russian money. And the rapidly
growing Alliance of Patriots — a populist party with anti-Western
leanings, which recently held a major rally
in Tbilisi — won almost 5 percent in June 2014. If these numbers hold,
parliamentary elections in 2016 could very well yield a very differently
oriented Georgian government. A 15 percent result would be more than
enough to send pro-Russian deputies into parliament in force, shattering
cross-partisan foreign-policy unity and potentially playing kingmakers in coalition talks.

Irakli Alasania, Georgia’s former defense minister, has Russia on his
mind. “There are very active pro-Russia groups and thousands of
protesters who are against Western integration,” he told me recently,
referring to the Alliance of Patriots rally. He expressed worry that the
current government is downplaying a growing Russian threat. With his
own Free Democrats now part of the parliamentary opposition, the ruling
Georgian Dream coalition’s ranks of solidly pro-Western parties has
noticeably thinned, and the leverage of socially conservative,
protectionist factions within the coalition has increased.

But this is probably only the beginning. If trends hold, Georgia’s
foreign-policy consensus — long taken for granted in the West — could
begin to unravel in earnest. Although Georgian Dream, to its credit, has
managed to skate the knife’s edge
between geopolitical pragmatism and Euro-Atlantic enthusiasm, it is
increasingly losing popularity among once-hopeful voters. As things
stand, parliament in 2016 looks like it will be very different from
today’s parliament. The pro-Western opposition United National Movement
will likely see its 51 seats slashed by half or more. In its place is
likely to be a collection of openly anti-Western deputies from
Burjanadze’s coalition and the Alliance of Patriots. If it stays
together, Georgian Dream may well remain the largest parliamentary bloc,
but the introduction of large anti-Western groupings into parliament
could compel it to dilute, or even abandon, its pro-Western policies out
of political necessity.

This trajectory ought to be a cause for deep concern. Even a Georgia
that tried to split its orientation between the West and Moscow would
likely sink into the quicksand of Russian dominance, as have each of the
other paragons of this strategy — Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Kazakhstan.
This result would mean the consolidation of Russian geostrategic
supremacy over the Caucasus and, with it, a complete Russian monopoly
over trans-Eurasian energy and trade flows.

There are ways the West could throw a much-needed lifeline to Georgian liberals.
While the association agreement with the European Union signed last
June is surely a welcome symbol, and the Deep and Comprehensive Free
Trade Area has great future potential, the real prize for most ordinary
Georgians is the prospect of visa-free travel to the EU. If this is
introduced this year, as widely hoped, this could be a real boon for
Western credibility. And if not outright NATO membership, other strong gestures, such as U.S. major non-NATO ally status,
would be a relatively painless upgrade that would enshrine what is
essentially the status quo while recognizing Georgia’s long-outsized dedication and contributions to the Euro-Atlantic space.

What is clear is that the days of taking Georgia’s
pro-Western consensus for granted are quickly coming to a close. Russian
influence is resurgent across its periphery, from Eastern Europe to the
Caucasus to Central Asia, and Georgia remains a long-coveted prize. It
may have taken successive military interventions, information warfare,
and influence operations, but Moscow looks to be turning a corner in its
bid to regain Georgia — both by hook and by crook.

In Russia they start voicing plans for the “opening” of a straight way
to Armenia via Georgia. In particular, this is what deputy director of
the Center of Strategic Situations Mikhail Chernov wrote in his article
on the Russian lenta.ru portal. His article was taken as a provocation
and probing of sentiments, still it caused a sharp reaction both in
Armenia and Georgia.
The essence of the article by Chernova is that the military-strategic
treaties between Russia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which are being
prepared for signing, may become prerequisites for Russia’s reaching the
border with Armenia. Now the only overland route from Russia to Armenia
lies through Georgia, and it is almost an insurmountable obstacle for
the integration of Armenia into the “neo-Soviet” space.

The texts of the treaties are already in the Russian State Duma, and,
according to Chernov, “the institution of bilateral treaties may become a
new tool of Russian foreign policy allowing Russia to meet its
objectives in the South Caucasus without unnecessary complications in
international relations.”

“Russia has two such basic tasks in the region and they are closely
related to each other. The first one is to prevent the creation of NATO
military infrastructure in Georgia. The second objective is to ensure a
reliable direct transport link with Armenia,” the Russian expert says.
Besides, control of the Russian Federation over transport communications
will provide full functioning of the Russian military base in Armenia.
The mechanism has also been devised. It turns out that on October 31
Vladikavkaz, the capital of Russia’s republic of North Ossetia hosted a
congress of the International Public Movement called “The Supreme
Council of the Ossetians”, which was also attended by former president
of South Ossetia Eduard Kokoity. He raised the question of Trusovsky
gorges and Kobin hollow being part of Ossetia. Presence in Kazbegi
region will make it possible to control a small section of the
strategically important Georgian Military Highway – the shortest route
from Russia to Armenia.

“At the same time, Russia is more interested in the development of the
Trans-Caucasian Highway. The ‘western’ route to Armenia passes through
the Gori district, bypasses Trialet Ossetia, where a considerable number
of Ossetians lived before the early 1990s, as well as the
Armenian-populated Samtskhe-Javakheti region,” Chernov writes.

He hopes that if by some chance in Georgia on the basis of the current
political crisis Maidan-like events start, Russia may introduce troops
into Georgia for the “protection” of Ossetians and thus open up its
route towards Armenia. In an interview with Newspost former defense minister of Georgia Dimitri
Shashkin said: “Alarm should be sounded over the document relating to
the Tskhinvali region, which officially entered the [Russian State]
Duma. Russian experts have already started openly speaking about the
threat that concerns Russia’s big desire to create a direct link with
its base in Gyumri (Armenia).”

According to Shashkin, on the basis of treaties being prepared with
Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Russia is openly stating that it will protect
them against Georgians. “[Russian] protection of Georgian regions is another new challenge. It
turns out that if about a hundred people are paid for setting up a group
of provocateurs, they [Russians] may invade Kakheti in order to protect
the local population. A hundred provocateurs can be found easily,”
Shashkin said. No official reaction to these statements have yet been made in Armenia,
Georgia and Russia, however, at the level of experts there are opinions
that such provocations can sow discord between Georgians and Armenians.
Former Georgian Defense Minister Irakli Alasania, who stepped down
recently, has repeatedly stated that the Russian base in Armenia is a
threat for Georgia. It is these threats that do not allow Georgia and
Armenia to establish mutually beneficial relations.

U.S. leaders once understood and accepted
that strong powers would insist on a security zone and broad sphere of
influence in their immediate geographic region. Indeed, as just a
middling power, the United States boldly asserted such a policy with
the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. The key passage warned
conservative European monarchies: “We should consider any attempt on
their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as
dangerous to our peace and safety.”

Yet, U.S. policymakers now denounce as
illegitimate similar bids to establish even modest security zones by
other major powers. That point is especially evident in Washington’s
conduct toward Russia.

The United States and its NATO allies
officially repudiate even the concept of spheres of influence,
contending that it has no place in the modern international system.
Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush’s secretary of state, made
that point explicitly in response to Moscow’s 2008 military intervention
in Georgia. She scorned the notion of Russian primacy along the
perimeter of the Russian Federation as the manifestation of “some
archaic sphere of influence.” Secretary of State John Kerry expresses
similar views. In November 2013, he even declared that “the era of the
Monroe Doctrine is over.” Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and
the Kremlin’s unsubtle support for secessionist forces in eastern
Ukraine, Kerry asserted that “you don’t in the 21st century behave in
19th century fashion” by invading a neighbor.

The current U.S. attitude is more than a
little hypocritical. Contrary to Kerry’s rhetoric, the Monroe Doctrine
is very much alive. Washington has intervened militarily as recently as
the 1980s (Grenada and Panama) or even the 1990s (Haiti) within its
traditional sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Russia’s brass knuckles tactics toward Kiev may be jarring to Western observers, but U.S.
leaders need to recognize that Ukraine has long had economic and
strategic relevance to Moscow. Any Russian government was bound to
resent an attempt to wrench Ukraine into the West’s geopolitical orbit.
And that is what Washington and its European allies did by supporting
the Maidan Square demonstrators who overthrew Ukraine’s pro-Russian, but
duly elected, president, Viktor Yanukovych.

Russia’s brass knuckles tactics toward Kiev
may be jarring to Western observers, but U.S. leaders need to recognize
that Ukraine has long had economic and strategic relevance to Moscow.

It is always a useful exercise for policymakers to view a situation
as though the positions of the various parties were reversed. Imagine
what the U.S. reaction would be if Russia (or
any other major power) expanded a military alliance that it led and
proceeded to incorporate Caribbean and Central American countries. That
scenario is analogous to how a U.S.-led NATO
expanded to include East European nations near or on Russia’s border.
Consider further how Washington would likely react if the rival power
then spoke openly of offering membership in its alliance to Canada and
Mexico, and used its influence to unseat a pro-U.S. government in one of those countries. At a minimum, U.S.
officials would be screaming about a blatant violation of the Monroe
Doctrine and would regard the rival power’s moves as
profoundly threatening.

It is illogical to assume that Moscow should view comparable Western
machinations differently. The blunt truth is that the United States and
its allies intruded into a traditional Russian sphere of
influence—indeed, into a zone that Moscow considers essential to
national security. U.S. leaders should
recognize that their conduct has violated an implicit Russian equivalent
of the Monroe Doctrine. The West needs to back off before it triggers
what former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev aptly described in a recent
speech as a new Cold War.

Indeed, such a confrontation might not remain cold. Already, Russian military aircraft and their NATO
counterparts have come dangerously close. The potential for an
inadvertent clash or a tragic miscalculation by one side or the other is
reaching worrisome levels. There is no justification for running
such risks. Russia’s behavior toward its neighbors may be abrasive, but it is
operating as major powers tend to do in their sphere of influence. U.S.
leaders once understood that reality. It is unfortunate, and
potentially disastrous, that our current policymakers apparently do not.

America’s new nightmare: India, China plus Russia

Russia is avidly hoping for a rapprochement between India and China
after the ongoing, high-profile visit of India’s Prime Minister Narendra
Modi to China. If political tensions between India and China decrease,
then the Russia, India, China (RIC) combine can begin to function as the
world’s economic and a strategic powerhouse, getting the United States
worried.

Indian
Prime Minister Narendra Modi travelled to China
on Thursday May 14, for negotiations with President Xi Jinping of the People’s
Republic of China.
As part of the three day visit Modi hopes to achieve a breakthrough in
relations with China,
which have so far been hindered by a boundary dispute and territorial claims from
both parties. Judging from indirect indicators, the visit might be a game
changer in relations between New Delhi and Beijing. The
program for Modi’s visit to China
has been designed so that the Indian Prime Minister will be received by China’s highest
officials. Breaking protocol, the Chinese President travelled to his native
city Xi'an, and personally met Modi, not only
for a summit-level meeting which lasted over 90 minutes, but also for an
informal tour of Xi’an’s
major Buddhist historical sites. This is the first time Xi has received a
leader outside Beijing.
The gesture is being viewed as a serious attempt to reduce bilateral
differences and “improve trust” between the two countries. President Xi was
also reciprocating a similar gesture made by Modi when the former visited India last year
in September. Modi had received Xi in his native Ahmedabad city.

The
Indian prime minister is in Beijing
on Friday to meet Chinese Premier Li Keqiang. His visit will conclude with a
trip to Shanghai where the Indian delegation
will hold negotiations with representatives of China’s business circles. For
Russia, the rapprochement
between India and China is an
issue of paramount importance. For a long time, the concept of a strategic
triangle between Russia, China and India has existed, but until
recently it has not appeared particularly viable. The RIC, as the group is
known, has been largely an economic forum, without much to show in strategic
terms. The
conflict between China and India over
their boundary is unresolved, and appears intractable. With this visit, it is
likely some issues will get resolved and the main difficulty for the economic
integration of Eurasia may have been resolved.
This means that Moscow
has new opportunities in the East.

In
this context, the telephone conversation between Russian President Vladimir
Putin and the Indian prime minister less than a day before Modi’s visit to China
is significant. According to the Kremlin press service, and Modi’s own tweets,
the Indian Prime Minister has confirmed his participation in the forthcoming
BRICS summit in July and the in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit,
both in Ufa. He
also discussed with the Russian President various issues associated with the
expansion of the Russia-Indian privileged strategic partnership. Last
week, Putin received Chinese President Xi in Moscow, where more than 30 agreements were
signed by the two leaders.

Svobodnay Pressa (SP): What does the rapprochement of Asia’s two economic giants mean for Russia?

“The
idea of a Russian, Chinese and Indian triangle was put forward by Evgenny
Primakov at the end of the 1990s,” said Alexey Maslov, Director of the Centre
of Strategic Research on China
at the Russian University of People’s Friendship. He is
also head of the Department of Oriental Studies at the Higher School of
Economics. “But
then it was thought that Russia
would play the leading role in the ‘triangle’. Now it is clear that China will play
this role, and this changes the entire situation,” he said. “One needs to understand that strengthening of the triangle will take place
according to China’s
concept of a new ‘Great Silk Road’. In other words, China will unite countries based on
mutual self-interest, primarily, economic.”

SP: Specifically what projects could unite India,
China and Russia?

“First
and foremost is the transition to keeping accounts using a common currency. It
is clear that such a currency is not going to appear tomorrow, but in the
best case scenario, it could be in 5-6 years. This is a very attractive
project. Furthermore, our three countries can introduce a preferential trade
system and establish joint enterprises. We can probably develop common rail and
aviation routes for cargo. Essentially,
today China is creating a
new political reality, and it is Beijing
that is controlling this reality. But a lot depends on how effectively China is able to normalize relations with India. This is
not easy to do, considering the territorial claims of the parties and the
mutual conflict they are causing, which have appeared as part of previous
Indian-Chinese negotiations.”

SP: Do you think that Beijing
will succeed in this?

“I
expect that as part of the visit Modi will conclude an agreement which will
freeze territorial disputes. I think that China
will take economic measures to provide India with credit to develop their
industry. I
must say that today India is
China’s
natural competitor in terms of production costs. It is possible that China will locate some of its enterprises in India.
In the near future, work will begin on Chinese investments into roadways and
railways in northern India. In
essence, within the framework of the Great Silk Road project, Beijing
is hoping to gain control over a vast territory – from Southeast Asia to
the Caucasus. This concept implies economic integration,
financial and political cooperation, common logistics, and
infrastructure. For
now, this concept covers the internal territories of China,
plus the neighbouring countries, like the Central Asian republics and a number
of countries in Southeast Asia. Russia has not yet signed up to this concept,
but said it is ready for cooperation within the framework of the two unions; the
Silk Road and the Eurasian Economic Union. (India has also not come on board the Silk Road project).

SP: Is it possible to say that in this situation, it is particularly advantageous
for Russia
to turn to the East?

“At
present, Russia is the
largest country that is supporting the “expansionist” policy of China. This
reinforces our political and economic positions. On the other hand, a number of
risks and conflicts can arise in the future, which can be resolved only if Russia will be
able to equally engage with the West, and with the East,” said Maslov. “Between
Beijing and New Delhi
there is a territorial dispute, arising from (before) the Sino-Indian border
war in 1962, which ended with the defeat of India,”
notes Andrey Ostrovsky, deputy director of the Institute of Far Eastern
Studies, and member of the European Association
of Sinologists. “As
a result, India now occupies
part of Chinese territory – the state of Arunachal Pradesh, and China a part of the Indian
territory – the Aksai Chin plateau. Until these territorial
disputes are resolved, achieving normal relations between the two countries
will be rather difficult.”

“However,
such issues can be resolved, gradually, through negotiations. Take for example
Russia-China relations. In 1964, when Mao Zedong for the first time raised the
question of the fate of 1.5 million square kilometres, which Tsarist Russia had
taken from China,
this issue was far from being resolved. However, in 2004 – 40 years later – the
final demarcation of the Russian-Chinese border was carried out. Given goodwill
on both sides, countries are quite capable of resolving their border issues. As
soon as China and India settle
their territorial disputes, all political questions will be immediately
resolved as well.”

“It
must be said that the settlement of this border issue is long overdue, as
economic ties between India
and China
are developing very quickly. The volume of India-China foreign trade is already
comparable to the volume of Russia’s
trade with China
– around $100 billion. The important thing is that problems between India and China
will be addressed not only within the BRICS format, but also within the
framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), in which Russia plays an
important role. As
we know, New Delhi
has applied for membership in the SCO. It is quite possible that during the SCO
Summit in Ufa this July, India’s
application will be approved.

SP: What constitutes mutual economic interests of India and China?

“Of
interest are the markets of both countries – these are huge markets. In fact,
almost all the excess production which China
is capable of can be sold in India
– and vice versa. Moreover, there are also products and services that are
produced only in India, or
only in China.
In India these are, above
all else, information services – software, while China
is hoping to build a high-speed rail network in India.

SP: What is Russia’s
place in these two economies?

“Our
place in the Chinese economy seems to be emerging from the 32 agreements signed
by President Xi during his May visit to Moscow.
According to these agreements, China
will invest into our infrastructure development program. In addition to the
high-speed railway from Moscow to Beijing, which is to be built in 2023, we have joint infrastructure
projects in Asia, such as the construction of
the railway route Kyzyl-Kuragino and the Far East Seaport. Additionally, China is providing Russia with lines of credit. We, on
the other hand, will supply gas to China via the western route, as
well as 100 Sukhoi Superjet airplanes. India is also interested in
Russian gas. The country is huge, and does not have enough energy resources.
Yes, problems do exist in organizing the supply of gas, for example, because of
the difficult terrain involved. However, as the Chinese have shown by building
a high-speed railway to Tibet,
this is not something insurmountable,” said Ostrovsky.

Russia
and India added their voices on Monday to China's call for a new world
order and endorsed Beijing's plans to mark the 70th anniversary of the
end of the second world war. The foreign ministers of the three nations met in the capital for
talks just a week after US President Barack Obama made a high-profile
trip to India. After Monday's meeting, President Xi Jinping gave a positive
assessment of China's ties with the two nations, despite New Delhi's
apparent distrust towards Beijing.

In a joint communique, the three nations vowed to "build a more just,
fair and stable international political and economic order" and a
"multi-polar" world. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said all states should be
involved in creating "a modern security architecture" in the
Asia-Pacific; his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi , said the region should
not be caught up in a zero-sum game. "We advocate the principle of partnership rather than alliance," Wang said.

The three nations also gave their support to efforts to put second
world war commemorations on the agenda of the United Nations General
Assembly. "We will be celebrating the 70th anniversary of the UN and the
world's victory against fascism. This provides a great opportunity for
countries in the world to cherish history and look forward to the
future," Wang said. Lavrov and Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj backed the
call, with Lavrov saying the world needed to be on alert for fascism.
"We must remember the tragic lesson of the events of those years," he
said.

China has sought to spearhead efforts for the anniversary, a move
that some observers have described as an attempt to exert pressure on
Japan. A military parade will be held in Beijing in September, to which
Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to be invited. The hosting of the two foreign ministers is seen as an attempt by
Beijing to present a united international front as a counterbalance to
Washington, after Obama's visit to India. During Obama's trip, India and the US said freedom of navigation
should be protected across the South China Sea, over which Beijing
claims sovereignty.

But Xi was positive on Sino-Indian ties as he meet Swaraj yesterday, saying the relationship had "entered a new stage". "The two nations have to properly control their differences with
patience, and the differences should not affect the overall picture of
their relations," the China News Service quoted him as saying.

Victory Day and the evolving Global Order

The 70th Victory Day parade was significant not only for
commemorating the Allied victory over the fascist forces, but also for
the lasting impact it may have on the evolving global order. The
participation of the Presidents of India, China and South Africa in
Moscow strengthened the BRICS and the RIC bonding, and helped bolster
Russia’s clout.

The grand Victory Day parade in
Moscow was significant not only for commemorating the 70th
anniversary of the Allied victory over the fascist forces, but also for
developments that may have a long lasting impact on the evolving global order. India’s participation in the
event strengthened the partnership between the two traditional allies – India
and Russia, and multilaterally, the participation of the Presidents of India,
China and South Africa strengthened the BRICS and the RIC bonding, and helped
bolster Russia’s clout.

During his interview with TASS,
Indian President, Pranab Mukherjee called the Victory Day a “determining event
in the 20th century”, as it witnessed the defeat of Fascism and
ended the prospects of world domination by Hitler. Mukherjee lauded the Soviet
role in the Second World War, and emphasized that the victory could not have
been possible without the immense sacrifice made by the Russian people. The
Allies’ victory generated the promise of an international order, based on
cooperation and mutual assistance. Russian President Vladimir Putin echoed Mukherjee’s
sentiment when he said, “Our common task should be offering equal-security
system for all countries.”

For the first time, a 75-member
contingent from India’s Grenadiers Regiment participated in the parade. The participation not only reflected India’s
commitment to friendship with Russia, but also India’s interest to stand with
Russia in trying times. The Indian media covered the event, narrating how the
contingent marched on Red Square to popular applause and how the leader of the
Indian contingent shook hand with President Putin.

There is a debate over India’s
participation in the event. Those opposed to India’s high-level participation
in the Victory Day celebrations argue that India, which is keen to strengthen
relations with the United States and its Western allies, should have taken a
more nuanced stand on Russia, and particularly on the conflict in Ukraine. The recent visit of Prime
Minister Narendra Modi to France, Germany and Canada, and finalization of the
Rafale deal with France, need mention in this context. India is interested in maintaining
a balance in its relations with Russia and the West.

The new mantra is cooperation in
a mutually beneficial framework. India understands that its reliance on the US
may not only distance it from Russia, but also push Pakistan closer to Russia
and China, a scenario Indian policymakers can hardly afford. However, the traditional India-Russia
relationship, which President Mukherjee termed a “special and privileged
strategic partnership,” is unlikely to succumb to geopolitical pressures.

The commemoration ceremonies have
strengthened relations between Russia, China and India. Besides the Indian
contingent, a contingent from the Chinese army participated in the parade.
Chinese President Xi Jinping and South African President Jacob Zuma were also
present along with President Mukherjee. While India and China are members of
the trilateral RIC, with South Africa, they are also members of BRICS. The next BRICS summit will take
place in Ufa in July, under Russian chairmanship.

The Allied Victory in World War
II led to the creation of the United Nations Organization as the guarantor of
international peace and security. Russia and its partners in BRICS have stressed
on the UN’s role in evolving a just and fair global order. UN Secretary General
Ban Ki-moon’s participation at the Victory Day celebration was significant
because it showed that, despite the stand-off between Russia and the West over
Ukraine, the UN recognized the enormous significance of the event. The trouble in Ukraine cast its
shadow as Western leaders boycotted the event. However, Putin shrugged off
their non-participation and went on to thank the people of the Allied powers. “We are grateful to the people of
Great Britain, France and the United States for their contribution to victory,”
he said.

The non-participation of western leaders
on such an occasion has further widened the chasm between Russia and the West.
Though German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Moscow the day after the parade (on
May 10) to pay homage to those who sacrificed their lives during the war, the
non-participation of the other war-time allies has narrowed the scope for
negotiation over differences on Ukraine. The polarization in international
politics, in terms of the East-West stand-off, may not augur well for international
peace and security, which was, in fact, the original message of the Victory Day
70 years ago.

Dr. Debidatta Aurobinda Mahapatra is an
Indian commentator. His areas of interests include conflict, terrorism,
peace and development, South Asia, and strategic aspects of Eurasian politics.

The website of a Spanish media reported on October 9 that while US
“New Century” is rapidly aging, the Beijing-Moscow-Berlin strategic
trade alliance may be a reality in the future. The website said: Beijing and Moscow leaders attach great importance
to the alliance, in which Beilin, New Delhi and Tehran have all shown
interest. However, US elites have entirely ignored it. Anyway, it is
difficult for Americans to accept the end of the all-round superiority
that Pentagon has enthusiastically pursued.

Moscow believes that Washington and its NATO are increasingly
interested in setting up an “Iron Curtain” to separate it from the West.
The Ukraine issue is but the commencement. For Chinese President Xi Jiping, his Chinese dream includes the new
Silk Road that will provide a fast corridor for European-Asian trade to
ease the pressure on the sea from Washington and Tokyo. He is setting up
two Silk Roads: one through Siberia and the other through Central Asia.

Both
China and Russia hope to see a Germany that Washington lacks
strength to control. Germany is adopting a geopolitical strategy clearly
different from Washington’s and German industrial circles earnestly
want to maintain unlimited trade cooperation with China and Russia. That
may cause Germany to pursue world power within the framework of EU.
China is now playing a new geopolitical role in Europe and Asia rare
in modern history. It is building and will build networks of highways,
high-speed railways, oil pipelines and ports connecting China with West
Europe and the Mediterranean.

The
Obama Administration mainly responds with containment of China in
the sea area from the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea and
intensification of China’s conflicts with Japan and India to establish
and strengthen its strategic alliance with India and Japan. However,
German industrial and commercial circles have already become
aware that while Chinese products may come through the Silk Road,
German goods can also go East via that road. It will enable China to
surpass the US and France and become Germany’s largest trade partner

When German Chancellor Merkel visited China three months ago, she
began discussion of a high-speed railway between Berlin and Beijing.
That reaiway will finally become Washington’s nightmare.

The Obama Administration has remained short-sighted. It always
believes tthat US technical and military strength will enable the US to
maintain its superior position. However, when Beijing has controlled the
ways to European and Asian markets, its huge financial and Moscow’s
abundant energy resources will deepen the strategic cooperation between
China and Russia, which will attract other large European and Asian
countries to join them. We can believe that in future European-Asian
era, it is quite possible for the US to be excluded from Europe and
Asia. By 2025, it will be clear whether there will be a changed world
with a Beijing-Moscow-Berlin axis.

The 12th Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit took place in Beijing on June 6-7,
2012. The annual event brought together the heads of states to review
and gauge the importance of the SCO in global affairs.
China hosted the summit for the third time since its inception. The
organization has crossed the threshold of the second decade of its
existence. It was founded on 15 June 2001 in Shanghai by the leaders of
China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan on the
basis of the Shanghai Five active since 1996. Iran, India, Mongolia,
Pakistan and now Afghanistan are the observer states. Belarus and Sri
Lanka became SCO dialogue partners in 2010. The participation of
officials representing the United Nations, the CIS, the Eurasian
Economic Community and the Collective Security Treaty Organization gave
the event a new dimension converting it into an international forum of
global scale and importance. In the past 11 years the SCO has faced the
challenges of our time, its very existence illustrating the
multipolarity of the contemporary world.

The leaders exchanged views on current world events and discussed the goals and missions defining strategic planning and prospects for future.
The signed Declaration on Building a Region with Lasting Peace and
Common Prosperity defined the core policy guidelines. It stressed that
“the member states support the building of a world free of nuclear
weapons and in strict compliance with the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The SCO calls on all nuclear
weapon states to sign the relevant protocols to the Treaty on a
Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia and take real steps to move
forward the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central
Asia”. In support of Russia’s stance on the issue the document said
“unilateral and unrestricted build-up of missile defense by an
individual country or a country bloc will endanger international
security and strategic stability. The relevant issues must be resolved
by all the countries concerned through political and diplomatic efforts.
The member states firmly believe that one should not pursue its own
security at the expense of other countries' security” – a clear message
to the USA led NATO’s European missile defense component.

It was decided to revise the SCO Regulations on Political and
Diplomatic Measures and Mechanisms of Response to Events Jeopardizing
Regional Peace, Security and Stability in order to enhance joint early
warning, crisis management, interaction and interoperability capability.
The participants came up with the program of fighting terrorism,
separatism and extremism for 2013-2015 that specified plans to counter
the activities of these "three forces" in the region. With terrorism,
separatism and extremism as well as other transnational crimes on the
rise, the SCO member states agreed to make the organization an effective
instrument of regional security. An agreement was also reached on
mutual disaster relief assistance. The countries will communicate in a
timely manner in case of emergency, send rescue teams, provide relief
supplies and minimize the impact of disasters.

The establishment of the SCO development bank and special account to
advance regional economic development was an important part of economic
agenda. Gradual transition to national currencies settlements and
financing joint projects is a great step forward on the way to gradual
economic integration. The member states agreed to enhance cooperation in
transportation, energy, telecommunications and agriculture. They also
believe it is necessary to promote cultural and educational exchanges
and expand people-to-people contacts and social interaction.

The Beijing summit outlined the “mid-term development strategy”. The
main objective is to “build the SCO as a practical and highly effective
platform for cooperation”. This is the first time that the SCO has come
up with a comprehensive policy plan of long-term cooperation in tackling
strategic issues. The strategy presupposes expanding the mandate of the
SCO and its membership. Membership expansion will be done on a
“consensual” basis and based on the results of road map fulfillment. In
the immediate future the process is to be limited to bringing in a few
observers and dialogue partners. The summit expanded the organization by
granting Afghanistan an observer status and making Turkey a dialogue
partner. Sri Lanka and Belarus were taken in as dialogue partners in
2010. The summit welcomed the proposed accession of India and Pakistan
to the security grouping, but no timetable was set to grant them full
membership. The SCO will strengthen cooperation with its observer states
and dialogue partners, the United Nations and its affiliated
organizations, as well as other international and regional actors.
Expanding the SCO mandate is reflected in adoption of an ambitious
action plan for Afghanistan. It was a key issue of the agenda. Kabul is
hosting an international conference on Afghanistan on June 14. The
participants stressed that the situation in Afghanistan has a direct
impact on the entire region. Russia, for its part, views drug
trafficking and extremism as main threats. The detailed plan envisages
reconstructing that country and bringing stability to the region.

The Iranian President’s attendance at the summit was an important
contribution. Defying the US and EU sanctions over Iran imposed to
punish it for nuclear activities, the SCO asks for “negotiated solution”
of the problem and is strongly opposed to unilateral actions in the
Middle East. It finds the use of force against Iran "unacceptable". The
summit’s statement on Syria also calls for a "peaceful resolution of the
Syrian problem through political dialogue".

The intent of the SCO members to strengthen joint security policy had
been displayed by real actions just before the summit. In April this
year Russia and China conducted the joint naval exercise Sea Cooperation
2012 in the Yellow Sea, following four bilateral military exercises
since 2005. The training team-up involved several simulated missions,
including the rescue of a hijacked ship, the escort of a commercial
vessel and the defense of a sea convoy against air and sea attacks. The
exercise demonstrated the will of the two leading SCO members to
strengthen the capability to jointly confront new regional threats. The
event came after US President Barack Obama signaled a "return to Asia"
following a decade of conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq last November.
The timing of the Sea Cooperation by and large coincided with the joint
exercises launched by the U.S. and Philippine military in the South
China Sea.

During the President Putin’s two days state visit to Beijing preceding
the SCO summit Russia and China stated they found common language in
foreign affairs and undertook to cooperate to ensure security in the
Asia Pacific region. “We believe our joint initiative to strengthen
security in the Asia Pacific region is important,” Putin said. “In this
context we will, of course, maintain relations between our defense
ministries.” He added: “We are for the formation of an open and equal
architecture of security and cooperation, based on the principles of
international law in the region”. The Russian President emphasized
burgeoning military ties with China. He noted Russia and China vowed to
expand military exchanges setting the above mentioned Russian-Chinese
naval exercises in the Yellow Sea as an example. Military exchanges
between Moscow and Beijing have accelerated under the aegis of the SCO
that hosts regular border protection and anti-terrorism drills. The both
sides agreed to bolster strategic relationship in a corresponding
statement.

Defense and security cooperation is a really an important part of the
SCO agenda. The armed forces of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
members will hold the "Peace Mission 2012" drill in Tajikistan from June
8 to 14 involving more than 2,000 servicemen from China, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The scenario envisages
joining forces in an anti-terrorist operation in mountainous areas
against the background of a regional crisis caused by terrorist
activities. The SCO summit emphasized the organization holds regular meetings of defense chiefs.
The member states have already held eight large-scale anti-terrorist
drills, five security forums and have made personnel exchanges and joint
training a routine matter. The SCO training activities have evolved
from company-level tactical training events to large-scale joint
combined exercises over the last decade.

Wrap up

Judging by the outcome of the summit the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization is in for major changes. The crises in the Middle East
triggered by the Arab Spring, the withdrawal of ISAF from Afghanistan,
the growing number of hotbeds in different regions - it all calls for
the intensification of the SCO efforts to strengthen regional security.
The summit confirmed the intention to jointly counter the challenges. A
new mechanism to do it will be launched as early as next month, right on
the eve of an international conference on Afghanistan slated for June
14 in Kabul. The CSO has a very important role to play in managing the
situation. Of course it would be wise to unite efforts with NATO to
tackle the problem jointly, though until now the Alliance has stubbornly
refused to act together with either the SCO or the CSTO. The decisions on the CSO expansion is a momentous event. Now the
organization has clearly grown beyond the scope of regional problems.
The fact of mentioning the US missile defense outside the national
territory in the declaration is a bright example. A consolidated SCO
position on the issue may become a significant counterweight to NATO’s
plans. Bringing in Turkey, a NATO member, is the confirmation of the
rising global influence. The main summit result is that the SCO has significantly varied and
deepened the cooperation process in all fields and enhanced its
international clout. It’s a win-win result for those who oppose a
unipolar vision of the contemporary world.

Paul Craig Roberts: Will Russia and China Hold Their Fire Until War Is the Only Alternative?

Obama’s September 24 speech at the UN is the most absurd thing I have
heard in my entire life. It is absolutely amazing that the president
of the United States would stand before the entire world and tell what
everyone knows are blatant lies while simultaneously demonstrating
Washington’s double standards and belief that Washington alone, because
the US is exceptional and indispensable, has the right to violate all
law. It is even more amazing that every person present did not get up and walk out of the assembly. The diplomats of the world actually sat there and listened to blatant
lies from the world’s worst terrorist. They even clapped their
approval.The rest of the speech was just utter bullshit: “We stand at a
crossroads,” “signposts of progress,” “reduced chance of war between
major powers,” “hundreds of millions lifted from poverty,” and while
ebola ravages Africa “we’ve learned how to cure disease and harness the
power of the wind and the sun.” We are now God. “We” is comprised of
the “exceptional people”–Americans. No one else counts. “We” are it. It is impossible to pick the most absurd statement in Obama’s speech
or the most outrageous lie. Is it this one? “Russian aggression in
Europe recalls the days when large nations trampled small ones in
pursuit of territorial ambition.”Or is it this one? “After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular
protests and calls for reform, their corrupt president fled. Against
the will of the government in Kiev, Crimea was annexed. Russia poured
arms into eastern Ukraine, fueling violent separatists and a conflict
that has killed thousands. When a civilian airliner was shot down from
areas that these proxies controlled, they refused to allow access to the
crash for days. When Ukraine started to reassert control over its
territory, Russia gave up the pretense of merely supporting the
separatists, and moved troops across the border.”The entire world knows that Washington overthrew the elected
Ukrainian government, that Washington refuses to release its satellite
photos of the destruction of the Malaysian airliner, that Ukraine
refuses to release its air traffic control instructions to the airliner,
that Washington has prevented a real investigation of the airliner’s
destruction, that European experts on the scene have testified that both
sides of the airliner’s cockpit demonstrate machine gun fire, an
indication that the airliner was shot down by the Ukrainian jets that
were following it. Indeed, there has been no explanation why Ukrainian
jets were close on the heels of an airliner directed by Ukrainian air
traffic control.The entire world knows that if Russia had territorial ambitions, when
the Russian military defeated the American trained and supplied
Georgian army that attacked South Ossetia, Russia would have kept
Georgia and reincorporated it within Russia where it resided for
centuries.Notice that it is not aggression when Washington bombs and invades
seven countries in 13 years without a declaration of war. Aggression
occurs when Russia accepts the petition of Crimeans who voted 97 percent
in favor of reuniting with Russia where Crimea resided for centuries
before Khrushchev attached it to the Soviet Socialist Republic of
Ukraine in 1954 when Ukraine and Russia were part of the same country.And the entire world knows that, as the separatist leader of the
Donetsk Republic said, “If Russian military units were fighting with us,
the news would not be the fall of Mariupol but the fall of Kiev and
Lviv.”Which is “the cancer of violent extremism”–ISIS which cut off the
heads of four journalists, or Washington which has bombed seven
countries in the 21st century murdering hundreds of thousands of
civilians and displacing millions? Who is the worst terrorist–ISIS, a group that is redrawing the
artificial boundaries created by British and French colonialists, or
Washington with its Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign policy,
which declares Washington’s dominant objective to be US hegemony over
the world?ISIS is the creation of Washington. ISIS consists of the jihadists
Washington used to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then sent to Syria to
overthrow Assad. If ISIS is a “network of death,” a “brand of evil”
with which negotiation is impossible as Obama declares, it is a network
of death created by the Obama regime itself. If ISIS poses the threat
that Obama claims, how can the regime that created the threat be
credible in leading the fight against it?Obama never mentioned in his speech the central problem that the
world faces. That problem is Washington’s inability to accept the
existence of strong independent countries such as Russia and China. The
neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine commits the United States to
maintaining its status as the sole Unipower. This task requires
Washington “to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose
resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate
global power.” A “hostile power” is any country that has sufficient
power or influence to be able to limit Washington’s exercise of power.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine explicitly targets Russia: “Our first
objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the
territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere.” A “rival” is
defined as any country capable of defending its interests or those of
allies against Washington’s hegemony.In his speech, Obama told Russia and China that they can be part of
Washington’s world order on the condition that they accept Washington’s
hegemony and do not interfere in any way with Washington’s control.
When Obama tells Russia that the US will cooperate with Russia “if
Russia changes course,” Obama means that Moscow must accept the primacy
of Washington’s interest over Russia’s own interest. Clearly, this is an inflexible and unrealistic position. If Washington keeps to it, war with Russia and China will ensue.Obama told China that Washington intended to continue to be a Pacific
power in China’s sphere of influence, “promoting peace, stability, and
the free flow of commerce among nations” by building new US air and
naval bases from the Philippines to Vietnam so that Washington can
control the flow of resources in the South China Sea and cut off China
at will.As far as I can tell, neither the Russian nor Chinese governments
understand the seriousness of the threat that Washington represents.
Washington’s claim to world hegemony seems too farfetched to Russia and
China to be real. But it is very real. By refusing to take the threat seriously, Russia and China have not
responded in ways that would bring an end to the threat without the
necessity of war.For example, the Russian government could most likely destroy NATO by
responding to sanctions imposed by Washington and the EU by informing
European governments that Russia does not sell natural gas to members of
NATO. Instead of using this power, Russia has foolishly allowed the EU
to accumulate record amounts of stored natural gas to see homes and
industry through the coming winter.Has Russia sold out its national interests for money?Much of Washington’s power and financial hegemony rests on the role
of the US dollar as world reserve currency. Russia and China have been
slow, even negligent from the standpoint of defending their sovereignty,
to take advantage of opportunities to undermine this pillar of
Washington’s power. For example, the BRICS’ talk of abandoning the
dollar payments system has been more talk than action. Russia doesn’t
even require Washington’s European puppet states to pay for Russian
natural gas in rubles.One might think that a country such as Russia experiencing such
extreme hostility and demonization from the West would at least use the
gas sales to support its own currency instead of Washington’s dollar.
If the Russian government is going to continue to support the economies
of European countries hostile to Russia and to prevent the European
peoples from freezing during the coming winter, shouldn’t Russia in
exchange for this extraordinary subsidy to its enemies at least arrange
to support its own currency by demanding payment in rubles?
Unfortunately for Russia, Russia is infected with Western trained
neoliberal economists who represent Western, not Russian, interests.When the West sees such extraordinary weakness on the part of the
Russian government, Obama knows he can go to the UN and tell the most
blatant lies about Russia with no cost whatsoever to the US or Europe.
Russian inaction subsidizes Russia’s demonization.China has been no more successful than Russia in using its
opportunities to destabilize Washington. For example, it is a known
fact, as Dave Kranzler and I have repeatedly demonstrated, that the
Federal Reserve uses its bullion bank agents to knock down the gold
price in order to protect the dollar’s value from the Federal Reserve’s
policies. The method used is for the bullion banks to drive down the
gold price with enormous amounts of naked shorts during periods of low
or nonexistent volume.China or Russia or both could take advantage of this tactic by
purchasing every naked short sold plus all covered shorts, if any, and
demanding delivery instead of settling the contracts in cash. Neither
New York Comex nor the London market could make delivery, and the system
would implode. The consequence of the failure to deliver possibly
could be catastrophic for the Western financial system, but in the least
it would demonstrate the corrupt nature of Western financial
institutions.Or China could deal a more lethal blow. Choosing a time of
heightened concern or disruptions in US financial markets, China could
dump its trillion dollar plus holdings of US treasuries, or indeed all
its holdings of US financial instruments, on the market. The Federal
Reserve and the US Treasury could try to stabilize the prices of US
financial instruments by creating money with which to purchase the bonds
and other instruments. This money creation would increase concern
about the dollar’s value, and at that point China could dump the
trillion dollars plus it receives from its bond sales on the exchange
market. The Federal Reserve cannot print foreign currencies with which
to buy up the dollars. The dollar’s exchange value would collapse and
with it the dollar’s use as world reserve currency. The US would become
just another broke country unable to pay for its imports.Possibly, Washington could get Japan and the European Central Bank to
print enough yen and euros to buy up the dumped dollars. However, the
likelihood is that this would bring down the yen and euro along with the
dollar. Flight would occur into the Chinese and Russian currencies, and financial hegemony would depart the West.By their restraint, Russia and China enable Washington’s attack upon
them. Last week Washington put thousands of its NGO operatives into the
Moscow streets protesting “Putin’s war against Ukraine.” Foolishly,
Russia has permitted foreign interests to buy up its newspapers, and
these interests continually denounce Putin and the Russian government to
their Russian readers. Did Russia sell its soul and communication system for dollars? Did a
few oligarchs sell out Russia for Swiss and London bank deposits?Both Russia and China have Muslim populations among whom the CIA
operates encouraging disassociation, rebellion, and violence.
Washington intends to break up the Russian Federation into smaller,
weaker countries that could not stand in the way of Washington’s
hegemony. Russian and Chinese fear of discord among their own Muslim
populations have caused both governments to make the extremely serious
strategic mistake of aligning with Washington against ISIS and with
Washington’s policy of protecting Washington’s status quo in the Muslim
world.If Russia and China understood the deadly threat that Washington
presents, both governments would operate according to the time honored
principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Russia and China
would arm ISIS with surface to air missiles to bring down the American
planes and with military intelligence in order to achieve an American
defeat. With defeat would come the overthrow of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain,
Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt and all of the American
puppet rulers in the area. Washington would lose control over oil, and
the petro-dollar would be history. It is extraordinary that instead
Russia and China are working to protect Washington’s control over the
Middle East and the petro-dollar.China is subject to a variety of attacks. The Rockefeller Foundation
creates American agents in Chinese universities, or so I am informed by
Chinese academics. American companies that locate in China create
Chinese boards on which they place the relatives of local and regional
party officials. This shifts loyalty from the central government to the
American money. Moreover, China has many economists educated in the US
who are imbued with the neoliberal economics that represents
Washington’s interests.Both Russia and China have significant percentages of their
populations who wish to be western. The failure of communism in both
countries and the success of American cold war propaganda have created
loyalties to America in place of their own governments. In Russia they
go by the designation “Atlanticist Integrationists.” They are Russians
who wish to be integrated into the West. I know less about the Chinese
counterpart, but among youth Western materialism and lack of sexual
restraint is appealing.The inability of the Russian and Chinese governments to come to terms
with the threat posed to their existence as sovereign countries by the
neoconservative insistence on American world hegemony makes nuclear war
more likely. If Russia and China catch on too late in the game, their
only alternative will be war or submission to Washington’s hegemony. As
there is no possibility of the US and NATO invading and occupying
Russia and China, the war would be nuclear.To avoid this war, which, as so many experts have shown, would
terminate life on earth, the Russian and Chinese governments must soon
become far more realistic in their assessment of the evil that resides
in what Washington has turned into the world’s worst terrorist state–the
US.It is possible that Russia, China, and the rest of the world will be
saved by American economic collapse. The US economy is a house of
cards. Real median family incomes are in long-term decline.
Universities produce graduates with degrees and heavy debts but no jobs.
The bond market is rigged by the Federal Reserve which necessitates
rigging the bullion markets in order to protect the dollar. The stock
market is rigged by the outpouring of money from the Federal Reserve, by
the Plunge Protection Team, and by corporations repurchasing their own
stock. The dollar is supported by tradition, habit, and currency swaps.The
American House of Cards continues to stand only as a result of
the tolerance of the world for vast corruption and disinformation and
because greed is satisfied by the money made from a rigged system.
Russia and/or China could pull down this House of Cards whenever either
country or both had leadership capable of it.

Russian-Chinese Drill in Mediterranean Sends Signal to US – Western Media

The Russian and Chinese navies began joint naval exercises in the Mediterranean Monday in the latest sign of strengthening ties between the two countries.

The naval drill, to include live-fire exercises in the strategic sea connecting Europe, Africa and the Middle East, is seen by Western media as a signal being sent to Washington of a powerful new alliance emerging “in the very backyard of Western Europe”. “While only two Chinese warships are joining the Mediterranean exercises, their deployment reflects China’s desire to help Russia counter American power”, the New York-based National Preview magazine wrote in a comment. “The enmity that defined Sino-Russian relations during much of the Cold War has long faded. In its place, an evolving China–Russian alliance is rising against American and international security. This alliance has a profound security component”.The import of the ten days of maneuvers that got underway Monday was not lost on The Los Angeles Times either.

“The point is lost on no one: A powerful new alliance of eastern giants is flexing its muscles in the very backyard of Western Europe — much as China has done on its own in the Pacific", the newspaper wrote on Monday. The Swiss newspaper Tages-Anzeiger wrote about the friendship between Moscow and Beijing going beyond purely political and economic considerations. “They are forging an alliance also in the military field as a counterbalance to the US and its European and Asian allies”, the paper warned.“Though small scale, it is a signal of growing defense ties between Beijing and Moscow and a demonstration that China's maritime horizons are broadening", the BBC said in a report Monday. “What is going on in the Mediterranean is hard proof of military might aimed against Washington”, the German Der Spiegel wrote, adding that Russia and China were drawn together by the presence of a common enemy – the United States. “The joint Russian-Chinese drill hints to Washington that a new rivalry is now in the making in the Mediterranean Sea”, the magazine wrote. The Sea Coopeeration-2015 exercise will run until May 21. A total of nine ships from both sides are taking part in the first drill of its kind to happen in the Mediterranean. The drills' goal has been stated as deepening friendly cooperation between China and Russia and strengthening their combat ability in repelling naval threats.

A major recent event last
week largely went unnoticed by both MSM and independent news sources
alike. The British are apparently jumping ship away from the US
dollar/petrodollar in an overt effort to align itself more closely with
the BRICS alliance as it seeks a new standard international currency.
For several years Russia, China, Brazil, India and South Africa (BRICS)
have been preparing the world for its transition from USD standard
international currency to its own alternative-in-the-making. America’s
so called mother country England has seen the writing on the wall and
knows the global balance of power is rapidly tilting in favor of where
the sun always rises in the emerging East.

The European central banking cabal from the City of London, a
separate and private political and financial entity apart from the rest
of both London and England, sent British royalty Prince William to China
to quietly sign a deal to become a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).
This surprising new development is a clear indication that the royal
Bank of England is placing its financial bet and future on China and the
East as its rock solid anchor. Much of the world has been looking to
move away from and abandon the longtime global financial stronghold of
the US Federal Reserve, its World Bank and US dollar standard. A US official feebly chastised UK in the Financial Times:

We
are wary about a trend toward constant accommodation of China, which is
not the best way to engage a rising power. More consternation arose
when Germany, France and Italy have
additionally made overtures in the same direction. This worldwide trend
spells utter defeat for Obama and his disastrous foreign policy. After
Washington’s been exerting strong-armed pressure on Australia as its key
allied partner supporting its failing Asian pivot designed to check
China’s growing regional and global dominance in the Pacific Asian
market, Australia is now also looking to follow suit accepting and
embracing China’s lead. According to international investor and entrepreneur Simon Black, the US is experiencing major economic blowback after two plus decades of aggression as the only global superpower:

… After years
of endless wars, spying, debt, money printing, bailouts, and insane
regulations, the rest of the world has had enough. And they’re looking
for an alternative.

Look,
you have $18.1 trillion in official debt, you have $42 trillion
in unfunded liabilities, and you’re kind of a dick. I’m dumping you.
Perhaps some Americans may feel a bit betrayed and unsettled by our
longtime strongest global allies one by one seemingly abandoning the US
dollar and American Empire in its reckoning time of need. If these
geopolitical and economic trends are examined beyond their face value
though, the changes occurring now may reflect much more significant,
deeper changes than a mere alteration of standard international currency
(as impactful as that will likely be for the US). These deep rooted
fundamental changes have everything to do with the major global shift
now taking place where the West’s ruling power elite itself is losing to the emerging global power rising in the East.

The latest act of bold economic defiance breaking rank with US Empire
interests mirrors last month’s bucking trend that Europe exercised when
putting the skids on the US campaign for sending heavy armaments to
Ukraine and pushing for war against Russia. The fact is Europe and
especially Germany depend on natural gas from Russia and the US imposed sanctions on Russia hurt Europe even
more than Russia. That along with wanting to avoid war in their own
backyard has nations like Germany and France softening their hardline,
US pushed anti-Russian posturing.

Several weeks ago German and French leaders attended meetings in
Mink, Belarus to negotiate a peaceful way out of the escalating violence
in Eastern Ukraine between the government forces in Kiev and the ethnic
Russian separatists seeking autonomy in the Donetsk and Lugansk region.
In the same way Netanyahu attempted to fan the war flames against Iran,
the same day Germany and France were gathering in Minsk to meet with
Putin and Ukraine leaders, Secretary of State Kerry showed up in Kiev mouthing
the same worn out lie of “Russian aggression” in a transparent feeble
attempt to sabotage the Minsk talks. Again, the tie-in is the Israeli-US
crime cabal constantly at work every chance they get peddling and
promoting more global violence, death and war.

For over a year now Washington’s war drums have been beating louder
for NATO to join forces with Ukraine, pressuring Europe to submit as it
always has in going along with its permanent war agenda, all the while falsely demonizing Russia’s President Putin with outrageous propaganda lies and
nonstop false flags not unlike the WMD lies against Hussein in 2002-3
Iraq. But in a rare gesture of independence, unwilling to start a war so
close to home against nuclear powered Russia that Europe relies heavily
as a critical source for its natural gas consumption, the powers of
Europe are seeking a non-violent resolution to its regional conflict
that carries the devastating potential of triggering World War III.

Meanwhile, NATO Supreme Commander US Air Force General Philip Breedlove fashions
himself to be a Dr. Strangelove incarnate, making repeated bogus claims
and lies of Russian army presence inside Eastern Ukraine in a vain yet
persistent attempt to foment war. Having such a deluded and deceitful
warmonger in charge of the NATO nuclear arsenal poses a calamitous
threat to the entire world. Yet his commander-in-chief Obama has chosen
not to relieve him of command. Instead German leaders have openly criticized Breedlove and the European Union wants to replace NATO with
its own continental army. This very public geopolitical conflict over
such widely differing Western approaches toward Ukraine seriously
undermine American Empire’s global influence and power, again
underscoring simultaneous developments around the world that indicate
consistent across the boards US foreign policy failures and from the
broader context, a rapid US decline as the sole global hegemonic
superpower.

The war has been provoked to destroy the Russian World, to draw
Europe into it, and to surround Russia with hostile countries.
Unleashing this world war, America is trying to deal with its own
internal problems.

Current economic turmoil reverberating in Japan is
in large part due to the notorious corruption of the Abe government
that may soon have additional problems to contend with once accusations
over a fraudulent past elections get fully exposed. Abe has been a
subservient tool used by the same international crime syndicate
controlled by subversive Israeli-American forces. As such, Japan will
also be moving away from the USD/West geopolitics and very likely
pivoting toward China and a Pacific alliance that excludes the US Empire
finding itself increasingly isolated on the outs.

Though incumbent Prime Minister
Netanyahu is the apparent winner in today’s Israeli election, the despot
had to claw and fight for his political life to survive another day.
Recent revelations that he’s been a Russian spy surfaced right after his
disgraceful debacle in front of the Israeli captured US congressional
audience on Capitol Hill two weeks ago and then came the despicable treasonous display of 47 Republican senators threatening
letter to Iran. Bibi’s days of hate, war and paranoia are numbered as
the ugly truth about his evildoing will continue to unfold that will
soon bring him down. Showing his true evil colors right to the end, the
day before the election Netanyahu once again reminded the world that an autonomous Palestinian state will never come to pass while on his watch.

Within the last couple weeks other mysterious events suggesting some
cataclysmic, behind-the-scenes development included the apparent disappearance of Vladimir Putin for
11 consecutive days, fueling speculation from an internal political
coup to possible sickness and/or death to witnessing the birth of his
child at the bedside of his girlfriend in Switzerland. Because so many
monumental breaking stories and developments seem to abound every week,
Putin’s normally high profile lifestyle would naturally generate even
higher profile speculation over his abrupt, extended disappearance. Of
course it begs the question asking if it’s merely coincidental with
these other earth-shaking events or very much related.

For years the CIA and US Empire have been hard at work in nations
from Eastern Europe through the Caucasus to Central Asia all the way to
China courting the favor of corrupt dictators and supporting coups
promoting anti-Russo-Sino US puppet governments along the entire
corridor bordering Russia and China. Despite such Obama’s plan after the
2008 Russian-Georgia conflict was to a reset relations with Russia. But
with last year’s US-induced Ukrainian coup and Russia’s annexation by
consensual vote of Crimea that “reset” plan went out the window. In 2011
Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan signed the economic alliance of the Eurasian Union.
Meanwhile, recognizing the strategic importance of the land bridge
between Europe, the Middle East and Asia, Putin has made inroads strengthening ties with the three South Caucasus nations.
Putin enticed Armenia to also join the Eurasian Union and has mediated
hostilities between Armenia and oil rich Azerbaijan while seeking to
repair and realign with Georgia that previously leaned toward the West.
US Empire has largely failed to gain a foothold in this part of the
world.

Other key geopolitical developments that have been ongoing for some time center in such remote places as western China’s mineral and oil-rich Xinjiang Province.
With the powerful US Navy patrolling and to a great extent controlling
Pacific waters in conjunction with Obama’s flop of an Asian Pacific
pivot, the geopolitics chessboard strategy to hem the two adversarial
giants in with hostile neighbors has generally backfired. Furthermore,
the US was not prepared for Russia and China to suddenly renew an
ultra-close economic, political and military bond that would effectively
counter US Empire’s hegemonic aggression. They promptly signed a $400 billion oil-gas pipeline deal that
will span a landlocked pathway, thereby foiling the US plan to seal off
the China’s energy access via the Pacific. Hence, Moslem populated
Xinjiang Province that is the proposed pipeline passage route has become
a highly contentious target where the West and CIA in particular have
been funding and supporting a separatist movement and acts of terrorism
as a disruptive interdiction tactic. Overall this covert strategy has
failed.

The Western cabal controlled crime syndicate led
by the likes of kingpin Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
financed and supported by the likes of multibillionaire Sheldon Adelson
and the Saudi royal family along with congressional henchman and ISIS
friend Senator John McCain and the rest of his treasonous Republicans,
the rogue US intelligence agency the CIA and NATO’s General Breedlove
are all bent on plunging the US Empire-NATO forces into World War III on
multiple warfronts at every global hotspot – Ukraine, Syria, Iran, the
Caucasus all the way eastward to China’s Xinjiang Province and northward
to the oil-rich Arctic against the forces of the two most powerful
nations of the East – Russia and China. As a desperate last ditch
attempt to retain its many centuries of Rothschild-Rockefeller power and
dominance, these evil-minded, megalomaniacal psychopaths know that
their hitherto unchallenged global control and strength that have
bankrupted and nearly destroyed the planet is fast slipping away. So
they seem all the more erratically resolute in seeking revenge by taking
the entire earth down with them.

The truth about the horror and destruction these Western oligarchs
have conspired and caused worldwide for centuries cannot even be
fathomed. They have ensured a permanent state of war (in the US alone 93% of its 239 years)
right up to the present Bush crime family-neocon fabrication of the
“war on terror,” then under Obama this last year alone wrongly plunging
America into another dangerous cold war with Putin’s Russia, and dozens
of tragic false flag events like 9/11 designed to demonize Moslems into becoming the instantaneous post-Communist designated enemy of the twenty-first century with the US-Saudi-Israeli creation of al Qaeda/ISIS.
These dark malevolent forces of evil that have propagated so much
misery and suffering on humanity for so long are finally at last being
exposed like never before.

The Western oligarch agenda to inflict a globalized system of absolute totalitarian fascist police state NWO control on
every nation and people on earth trapped in hopeless debtor bondage may
just be running into a brick Eastern wall as clear losers in the
ongoing economic/currency war. Despite the constant jabbing of Putin and
his Russian bear in vain attempts to manipulate him to react with
military force in eastern Ukraine and despite the failed overt assault
in the form of US Empire’s Asian pivot designed to close in and isolate
China from the rest of Pacific Asia, ironically it’s the United States
that finds itself increasingly alone as the longtime global village
bully that’s finally met its match about to get its comeuppance. The
smarter, economically stronger forces emerging from the East are winning
the power war potentially without even firing a single shot against
Western oppressors. Hopefully peace will prevail and the international
crime syndicate that has long controlled the West will be deposed of as
the murderous traitors to both peace and humankind.

As a necessary qualifier, actual real life tends toward shades of
gray far more than black and white. Undoubtedly elements of corruption
and evil lurk behind all the most powerful nations in both the West and
the East. But the forces of China and Russia appear to be seeking a far
more rational, humane and even peaceful resolution to the
West-instigated West vs. East geopolitical military showdown sinisterly
orchestrated by the international crime cabal’s global agenda of
polarization, militarization, privatization and unsustainable,
insurmountable debt-driven feudalism based on pure theft, deception,
exploitation, impoverishment and pervasive planetary destruction.

Seeking to avoid the inevitable
bloodbath that would result from world war and possible nuclear
annihilation of all life forms on earth, the East appears to be seeking
to avert such global disaster by ensuring that this ongoing war is won
by successfully transitioning to an international currency backed once
again by the gold standard. The Western central banking cabal consisting
of the Bank of England and other European central banks, America’s
Federal Reserve Board, its World Bank and International Monetary Fund
along with the Israeli-US government crime cabal all stand to ultimately
be stripped of their absolute power that have the entire world drowning
in debt, crushing destabilization and impoverished despair. But now a
light at the end of the tunnel at least is shining a little brighter.

Joachim Hagopian is
a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a
manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It
examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and
national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s
degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the
mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates
on his writing and has a blog site at http://empireexposed. blogspot. com/.

Anglo-Saxon agression against Russia is taking the form of financial and economic warfare. However, Moscow is preparing for armed hostilities by developing its agricultural self-sufficency and multiplying its alliances. For Thierry Meyssan, after the creation of the caliphate in the Levant, Washington would lay down a new card in September in Saint Petersburg. The ability of Russia to maintain its internal stability will determine the course of events.The offensive led by Anglo-Saxons (USA, UK and Israel) for world domination continues on two lines simultaneously: both the creation of the “Greater Middle East” by attacking simultaneously Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, and separating Russia from the European Union through the crisis they organized in Ukraine.In this sprint, it seems that Washington wants to impose the dollar as the single currency in the gas market, the energy source of the twenty-first century, the way it imposed it on the oil1 market. The Western media hardly cover the war in Donbass and their population is ignorant of the scale of the fighting, the US military presence, the number of civilian casualties, the wave of refugees. On the other hand, Western media have a delayed reaction to events in North Africa and the Levant, presenting them either as the result of a so-called “Arab Spring” (that is to say, in practice, a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood), or as the destructive effect of a civilization which is inherently violent. More than ever, it is necessary to help the Arabs who are incapable of living peacefully in the absence of Western settlers.Russia is now the leading power capable of leading the resistance to Anglo-Saxon imperialism. It has three tools: BRICS, an alliance of economic rivals who know they can not grow up without one another, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a strategic alliance with China to stabilize Central Asia and finally, the Organization for Collective Security Treaty, a military alliance of former Soviet states.

At the Fortaleza Summit (Brazil), which was held from 14 to 16 July, BRICS took the plunge and announced the creation of a monetary reserve fund (mainly Chinese) and a BRICS Bank as alternatives to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the dollar system2.Even before this announcement, the Anglo-Saxons had established their answer: the transformation of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network in order to prepare unrest among all Muslim peoples of Russia and China.3 They continued their offensive in Syria and spilled over the borders both in Iraq and in Lebanon. They failed, however, to expel part of the Palestinians to Egypt and to destabilize the region even more deeply. Finally, they keep away from Iran to give President Hassan Rohani a chance to weaken the power of the anti-imperialist Khomeinists.Two days after the announcement of the BRICS, the United States accused Russia of destroying Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over the Donbass, killing 298 people. On this basis, purely arbitrary, they forced the Europeans to enter into economic war against Russia. Situating itself as a court, the Council of the European Union tried and convicted Russia without any evidence and without giving it an opportunity to defend itself. The CEU issued “sanctions” against its financial system.Recognizing that European leaders are not working for the interests of their people, but for those of the Anglo-Saxons, Russia has gnawed at the bit and refrained from going to war in Ukraine. It supports the insurgents with arms and intelligence, and hosts more than 500'000 refugees, but declines to send troops into the fray. It probably will not happen until the vast majority of Ukrainians revolt against President Poroshenko, even if it does not enter the country until after the fall of the People’s Republic of Donetsk.Faced with economic warfare, Moscow has chosen to respond with similar measures, but in agriculture, not finance. Two considerations guided this choice: first, short-term, other BRICS can mitigate the consequences of so-called “sanctions”; on the other hand, medium and long term, Russia is preparing for war and intends to completely rebuild its agriculture to go it alone.Moreover, the Anglo-Saxons have planned to paralyze Russia from within. First by activating, via the Islamic Emirate (EIS), terrorist groups within its Muslim population, and organizing a media challenge in the municipal elections of 14 September.4 Large sums of money have been distributed to all opposition candidates in the thirty largest cities involved, while at least 50'000 Ukrainian agitators, mixed with refugees, are regrouping in Saint Petersburg. Most of them have dual Russian citizenship. This is clearly to reproduce at the provincial level protests that followed the elections in Moscow in December 2011 – with the addition of violence; and engage the country in a color revolution process to which certain officials in the ruling class are favorable.To do so, Washington has appointed a new ambassador to Russia, John Tefft, who had prepared the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia and the coup in Ukraine. It will be important for President Vladimir Putin to be able to trust his prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, whom Washington hoped to recruit to overthrow him.Considering the imminent danger, Moscow would have been able to convince Beijing to accept the accession of India in exchange for that of Iran (but also those of Pakistan and Mongolia) to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The decision should be published at the summit in Dushanbe (Tajikistan) on 12 and 13 September. It should put an end to the conflict which has opposed India and China for centuries and engage them in military cooperation. This reversal, if confirmed, also would end the honeymoon between New Delhi and Washington who was hoping to distance India from Russia in particular by giving access to nuclear technologies. The membership of New Delhi is also a bet on the sincerity of the new Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, despite the suspicion that he encouraged anti-Muslim violence in 2002 in Gujarat when he was the leading Minister.In addition, the accession of Iran, which is a provocation in the face of Washington, should give the SCO precise knowledge of jihadist movements and ways to counter them. Again, if confirmed, it would reduce Iran’s willingness to negotiate a lull with the “Great Satan” that led it to elect Sheik Hassan Rohani to the presidency. It would be a gamble on the authority of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.Indeed, these memberships would mark the beginning of the shift in the world from the West to the East.5 Still, this trend must be protected militarily. This is the role of the Organization for Collective Security Treaty (CSTO), formed around Russia, but to which China does not belong. Unlike NATO, this organization is a classic alliance, consistent with the Charter of the United Nations since each member retains the option to leave if it wants. So it is based on this freedom that Washington has tried in recent months to buy some members, including Armenia. However, the chaotic situation in Ukraine appears to have cooled those who dreamed of US “protection”. Tension is likely to increase in the coming weeks.

One might be tempted to regard Russian
premier V. Putin's paper “A new integration project for Eurasia: The future in
the making”, which saw the light of day in Izvestia on October 3, 2011, as the
presidential front-runner's sketchily laid out program, but upon scrutiny that
appears to be only one part of a wider picture. The opinion piece momentarily
ignited wide-scale controversy in and outside of Russia and highlighted the ongoing
clash of positions on global development…

Regardless of interpretation details, the reaction of the Western media to the
integration project unveiled by the Russian premier was uniformly negative and
reflected with utmost clarity an a priori hostility towards Russia and any
initiatives it floats. Mao Zedong, though, used to say that facing pressure
from your enemies is better than being in such a condition that they do not
bother to keep you under pressure.

It helps to understand why, at the moment, Cold War-style headlines are
constantly popping up in Western media and what perceived threat the West
discerned in Putin's recent Eurasian integration. The obvious explanation is
that, if implemented, the plan would come as a geopolitical challenge to the
new world order, to the dominance of NATO, the IMF, the EU and other
supranational bodies, and to the undisguised US primacy.Today's
increasingly assertive Russia
suggests and is ready to start building an inclusive alliance based on
principles providing a viable alternative to Atlantism and neoliberalism. It is
an open secret that these days the West is putting into practice an array of
far-reaching geopolitical projects, reconfiguring Europe in the wake of the
Balkan conflicts and against the backdrop of the crises provoked in Greece and
Cyprus, assembling the Greater Middle East based on serial regime changes
across the Arab world, and, as a relatively novel design, implementing the Asia
project in which the recent disaster in Japan was an active phase.

In 2011, the intensity of geopolitical dynamics was unprecedented since the
collapse of the USSR
and the Eastern Bloc, with all major countries and international bodies
contributing. Moreover, the current impression is that military might somehow
became a legitimate instrument in international politics. Just days ago, Moscow drew avalanche criticism after vetoing the UN
Security Council resolution which could authorize a replay of the Libyan
scenario in Syria.
As a result, US permanent
envoy to the UN S. Rice slammed Russia
and China
over the veto, while French foreign minister Alain Juppé declared that “it is a
sad day for the Syrian people. It is a sad day for the Security Council”.
During the heated UN security Council debates on September 5, Syrian
representative lambasted Germany
and France, and charged the US with perpetrating genocide in the Middle East. After that, S. Rice accused Russia and China
of hoping to sell arms to the Syrian regime instead of standing by the Syrian
people and stormed out of the meeting, and French envoy Gérard Araud
opined that “No veto can clear of their responsibility these Syrian authorities
that have lost any legitimacy by murdering its own people”, leaving an
impression that murdering people, as in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and
Libya, should be a NATO privilege.

Moscow's Western “partners” are outraged
whenever Russia, in concert
with China,
puts obstacles in the way of the new world order. Syria,
albeit a regionally important country, only fleetingly tops the agenda, but
Putin's ambitious plan for the whole Eurasia -
“reaching a higher level of integration – a Eurasian Union” - had to be
expected to evoke deep and lasting concerns in the West. Moscow
openly challenges the West's global dominance by “suggesting a model of a
powerful supranational union that can become one of the poles of today's world
while being an efficient connecting link between Europe
and the dynamic Asia-Pacific Region”. No doubt, Putin's messages that “the
combination of natural resources, capital, and strong human potential will make
the Eurasian Union competitive in the industrial and technological race and the
race for investor money, new jobs, and advanced production facilities” and that
“along with other key players and regional institutions such as the EU, the
USA, China, and APEC, it will ensure the sustainability of global development”
sounded alarming to Western leaders.

Neither the collapse of the USSR
and the bipolar world nor the subsequent proliferation of pro-Western
“democracies” marked a final point in the struggle over global primacy. What
followed was an era of military interventions and displacements of defiant
regimes with the help of information warfare and the omnipresent Western soft
power. In this game, Eurasia remains the main prize in line with John
Mackinder's geopolitical imperative by which “Who rules East Europe commands
the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the
World-Island controls the world”.

In the late XX century the US
became the first-ever non-Eurasian country to combine the roles of the world's
top power and the final arbiter in Eurasian affairs. In the framework of the
new world order doctrine, the US and the West as a whole see Eurasia as a zone
of key importance to their economic development and growing political might.
Global dominance is an openly stated and constantly pursued goal of the
Euro-Atlantic community and its military and financial institutions – NATO, the
IMF, and the World Bank - along with the Western media and countless NGOs. In
the process, the Western establishment remains fully aware that, in Z.
Brzeziński's words, „America's
global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its
preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained”. Sustaining the
“preponderance”, in turn, takes control over Europe, Russia,
China, the Middle East, and Central Asia.

Untamed Western hegemony in Europe, Central Asia, and, to an extent, in the
Middle East and even Russia
used to count as an unquestionable outcome of the past couple of decades, but
at the moment the situation appears fluid. Western, Chinese, and Russian
watchers alike are predicting an imminent failure of the neoliberal
globalization model embedded in the new world order, and the time is coming for
the political class to adopt the view.

By opening up opportunities to shield original models of national development
from Atlantist pressure and to maintain real international security, Putin's
new integration project holds a major promise for Russia
and its allies, and thereby presents Russia's foes with a serious
problem. Neither Russia nor
any other post-Soviet republic can survive in today's world single-handedly,
and Russia as Eurasia's key geopolitical player with economic,
political, and military potentials unparalleled across the post-Soviet space
can and should stake a bid for an alternative global architecture.

The West's allergy to Putin's plan is therefore explainable, but, regardless of
the opposition the project is bound to run into, of the weakness of some of its
elements, and of the potential difficulty of putting it into practice, the
Eurasian integration project grew out of the life of the post-Soviet
geopolitical and cultural space and is consonant with current global trends.
Surviving, preserving the economic and material foundations of national existence,
keeping traditions alive, and building a secure future for the children are the
objectives the Eurasian nations can accomplish only if they stay aligned with Russia.
Otherwise, isolation, sanctions, and military interventions awaits them…

An
American analyst says the United States is trying to extend its hegemony
in the world and Russia is the "last major check on US imperial
status."

“The United States is trying to extend hegemony in the Middle East as
well as Eastern Europe. It is trying to finish off and solidify its
imperial status and the last major check on US imperial status is
Russia,” Rodney Martin, a former US Congressional staffer, said in a
phone interview with Press TV on Monday. He made the remarks in response to comments by former US congressman
Ron Paul who criticized the Obama administration’s hypocrisy in foreign
policy. In a recently published article, Paul said Washington’s double
standards in its foreign policy is evident in the way US President
Barack Obama and his Secretary of State, John Kerry, have treated recent
presidential elections in countries like Syria and Ukraine. Kerry called the recent election in Syria, in which over 88 percent
of the voters voted for Bashar al-Assad, a “non-election” and a “great
big zero” while describing the presidential election in Ukraine, in
which the Western-backed billionaire Petro Poroshenko won with just over
50 percent of the vote, “a victory for democracy.”

“The United States is trying to do in Syria what it is also trying to
do in Ukraine and that is to extend its geo-political interests and
that goes to a document that you can see online called PNAC, Project for
the New American Century,” Martin told Press TV. “The United States is looking beyond being just the only superpower.
It’s looking at basically running the world, the world’s affairs. Look
at its bases in Africa, its locking horns with China. It’s a very
dangerous power play. I would say that President Obama has far exceeded
any sort of global expansionist ideas that George W. Bush had,” he
concluded.

In the
wake of Crimea's independence referendum, Hillary Clinton says Russian
President Putin is a "new Hitler." Zbigniew Brezezinski, former
National Security Advisor agrees, calling Putin not just another Hitler,
but also a thug, a menace, a Mafia gangster, and a Mussolini. The
Western mainstream media echoes this childish name-calling.

Why is the whole Western foreign policy establishment so afraid of Putin?

Because Putin is standing up against Western aggression – not only in
Ukraine, but also in Syria and Iran. Ongoing Western attempts to
destabilize these and other countries are just the most recent examples
of a decades-old pattern of aggression. The long-term goal: Total
destruction of traditional nations and values, and the creation of a New
World Order global dictatorship.

Since the 1953 CIA-MI6 coup in Iran, the West has been using the same
formula to overthrow legitimate but uncooperative leaders: First,
sabotage the country's economy. Then bribe corrupt military officers and
thugs and pay rent-a-mobs to create chaos in the streets. Next (this
step is optional) incite violence by paying snipers to fire into crowds –
and maybe set off some bombs. Finally, send the corrupt military units
and gangsters to overthrow the target nation's legitimate leader, murder
or imprison his supporters, install a Western puppet in his place – and
announce that "order has been restored."

The CIA did it to Iran's democratically-elected Prime Minister
Mossadegh in 1953, to Indonesia's President Sukarno in 1965, and to
Chile's Prime Minister Allende on September 11th, 1973. They did the
same thing to Ukraine's legitimate president, Viktor Yanukovych, a few
weeks ago. Neocon regime-change apparatchik Victoria Nuland (The
assistant US secretary of state,) got caught admitting that the US had
spent five billion dollars to overthrow Ukraine's democratically-elected
government; and EU Foreign Affairs Chief Catherine Ashton was heard on
tape discussing the "news" that the Maidan Square snipers were part of
the US-sponsored coup.

The people of Ukraine should be worried. US-sponsored coups can turn very bloody very quickly.

The CIA's 1965 Indonesia coup was one of the biggest holocausts in
history. According to Princeton history professor Bradley Simpson, as
cited by the Jakarta Globe: "The US and British governments did
everything in their power to ensure that the Indonesian army would carry
out the mass killings" of more than one million people following the
coup against Sukarno. Most of the victims were tortured before they were
murdered. The list of names of people to be tortured and murdered was
provided by the CIA to their hired Indonesian thugs. While this was
going on, five-year-old Barrack Obama was living in Indonesia with his
stepfather Lolo Soetoro, who was working for the American mass
murderers.

That's right: Obama's stepfather was a holocaust perpetrator.

In 1971, following the CIA's coup in Chile, the American stooge
Pinochet murdered 3,000 people and tortured 30,000. These actions were
fully supported by Pinochet's American sponsors, who trained and paid
the thugs and torturers. The hecatomb in Syria, too, is best understood as yet another US-sponsored coup attempt.

The NWO-driven Americans and their Western allies have killed tens of
millions in these coups, interventions, destabilization campaigns, and
undeclared wars. According to André Vltchek and Noam Chomsky's book On
Western Terrorism, the total number killed is over 50 million since
World War II. If we add to this the number of people tortured,
brutalized, falsely imprisoned, forced to become refugees, or who had
their lives ruined by Western terrorism, the number of victims reaches
the hundreds of millions.

Today, the American terrorists and their NATO allies seem less
interested in installing puppet governments than in reducing entire
nations to chaos. The CIA-NATO coup against Gaddafi has destroyed Libya
as a modern nation-state. Western-backed false-flag terror in Iraq is
splitting up that country. Syria is being decimated by a Western-backed
attempt to overthrow Assad. Venezuela, too, is being destabilized by a
CIA-backed coup effort.

In short, the New World Order – a shadowy group of global banking
oligarchs bent on establishing a one-world dictatorship – is trying to
overthrow every leader on earth who resists. Russian President Putin is
resisting. That is why the Western propaganda machine is calling him
names. It is worth noting that Russia and Iran – the two nations most
successfully resisting NWO regime change – are doing so in the name of
God.

According to Catholic intellectual E. Michael Jones, the 1979 Iranian
Revolution was the opening salvo of a global backlash against
secularism's destruction of traditional values. Like the 1980 election
of Ronald Reagan (driven by Americans' disgust with the so-called sexual
revolution) and the rise of Poland's Solidarity movement (which opposed
communist atheism), the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran
was a landmark event signaling an end to the 20th-century wave of
militant secularism and atheism – and a revival of traditional religion.

President Putin enjoys overwhelming popularity in Russia due to his
defense of traditional religious values. In his State of the Nation
address last December, Putin said: "Many Euro-Atlantic countries have
moved away from their roots, including Christian values… Policies are
being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a
same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan."

Putin's reference to Satanism was a pointed rebuke to the New World
Order elites, who – though they push militant secularism on the
societies they are trying to undermine – are closet Satanists. Anyone
who doubts this should run the name "Lt. Col. Michael Aquino" through a
search engine. Aquino, an avowed Satanist and credibly-accused mass
child abuser, was rewarded for his crimes against children with an
appointment as Chief of Psychological Warfare for the US military. (For
background on the satanic international banking elite, and its
near-total control of Western institutions, read Nick Bryant's book The
Franklin Scandal alongside the work of Canadian scholar Henry Makow.)

The shock troops of the NWO's war against religion and tradition (and
Russia and Iran) are the neoconservatives. Operation Gladio terrorist
Michael Ledeen explains: "Creative destruction is our middle name, both
within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day,
from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to
politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of
energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may
be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace ... We must destroy
them to advance our historic mission."

Putin is stopping New World Order "creative destruction" in Syria and
Ukraine. He is part of a growing coalition opposing the NWO – not just
religious traditionalists, but also progressive anti-globalization
forces, including Hugo Chavez inspired anti-imperialists in Latin
America. We are facing an epic struggle between those who espouse sacred
values such as justice and decency versus those who wish to destroy all
values.

God bless President Putin, who is putting the fear of God into the New World Order.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned of the threat posed by US submarines "on permanent alert" off Norway. ”They are equipped with missiles that can reach Moscow in 17 minutes," he told Italy’s Il Corriere della Sera newspaper. "And you would call us aggressive?“ Putin’s comments came after Prime Minister Erna Solberg on Friday said that Norwegian involvement in Nato’s Missile Defence System was “necessary”, committing her country to taking a role in the network, a move certain to irritate Russia, which sees the system’s role out as an act of aggression.In his interview, Putin denied that Russia was becoming more aggressive, instead suggesting that a growing Nato presence in Norway and other countries on Russia’s borders was forcing his country to respond.“We are not expanding anywhere,” he said, “It is Nato infrastructure, including military infrastructure, that is moving towards our borders. Is this a manifestation of our aggression?”He singled out Nato’s missile defence system for criticism. “The United States unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was to a large extent the cornerstone of the entire international security system,” he noted, pointing to George W Bush’s unilateral decision to withdraw in December 2001 in order to build a predecessor of the Nato system.

“Anti-missile systems, bases and radars are located in the European territory or in the sea, e.g. in the Mediterranean Sea, and in Alaska,” he went on. “We have said many times that this undermines international security. Do you think this is a display of our aggression as well?”The Russian president also complained that the much-reported increase in the number of flights by Russian military aircraft in the Baltic Sea, and near the US borders off Alaska, was intended only to match Nato’s existing flight programme. “Sometimes I am asked about our airplanes flying somewhere far over the Atlantic Ocean,” he said. “Patrolling by strategic airplanes in remote regions was carried out only by the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. In the early 1990s, we, the new, modern Russia, stopped these flights, but our American friends continued to fly along our borders. Why? Some years ago, we resumed these flights. And you want to say that we have been aggressive?He pointed out that while Nato was still active in Norwegian waters close to Russian territory, Russia had long-since closed down its own missile bases in Cuba. “We dismantled all of our bases in Cuba a long time ago, even the non-strategic ones,” he said. Finally, he made a powerful argument that Russia’s growing military spending still left it far behind Nato.“US military spending is higher than that of all countries in the world taken together,” he said. “The aggregate military spending of NATO countries is ten times, note – ten times higher than that of the Russian Federation.”“Russia has virtually no bases abroad,” he added, pointing to the base in Armenia and another in Kyrgyzstan. “I invite you to publish the world map in your newspaper and to mark all the US military bases on it. You will see the difference.”“Everything we do is just a response to the threats emerging against us,” he continued. “Besides, what we do is limited in scope and scale, which are, however, sufficient to ensure Russia’s security. Or did someone expect Russia to disarm unilaterally?”

231 comments:

Excellent piece of commentary by Zoravar, it touches rather nicely on Novorossiya.

Regarding the FIFA scandal, there might be another angle on that: as you may not know, Israel was a possible suspension of its membership when Palestine made that proposal because of how its players were treated. It's not the first time Israel was expelled from a continental football association (the AFC in this case). I believe that America had launched its arrest of the FIFA football officials at Israel's instigation. Of course, Americans and Jews are always working together to eliminate nations that refuse to bow to its hegemony.

On my other posting, the recent American spat with China in the West Philippine/South China Sea has led me to give this post:

"I'm just nitpicking on what will happen to my country in the event that China and America go to war with each other. As all of you are aware, the Philippines rely too much on the US for its security needs as our own military is sub par. However, from a military strategic point of view, taking out the Philippines will endanger the US Pacific Fleet based in Okinawa and Japan, plus it will endanger Australia and New Zealand because the shipping lanes between Japan and those two states go through the Philippines. As Japan, Australia, and New Zealand are island nations, they are more likely to be net importers. Thus a Chinese attack on the Philippines will severely affect those shipping lanes."

The Eurasian Silk Road will lessen Chinese and Russian reliance on shipping lanes that are controlled by Japan and the Philippines, both nations with US bases and have the capability to blockade Chinese coasts in the event of war. With America's defeat in Asia, China has acquired access to SE Asia. However, this will affect me personally as my family who remain the Philippines will witness first hand what a Chinese occupation will look like should China actually invade the Philippines in a war against the USA.

Jerriko, I don't think the Israel factor had anything to do with Uncle Sam's move against FIFA, although it certainly didn't hurt the effort.

I think China has better things to do than militarily occupy entire nations. I don't think a Chinese invasion of the Philippines is a realistic scenario. If there is a major war in the region and your nation is turned into a major military staging ground by the US, the most China might do is strike at the island with missiles. But I don't think it will come to that. China is a giant and the US will not risk a war with it.

I was listening to NPR recently and I caught part of an interview of a Filipino about the US-China spat. He said something along the following: With so much muscle flexing by China, more-and-more Filipinos are beginning to ask if it's time to breakaway from the US and begin cooperating with China. I said to myself, I wonder if that was Jerriko?

PS: The Eurasian Silk Road can effectively end Western control over global commerce - as well as strike a death blow against the US Dollar. The Eurasian Silk Road therefore holds massive potential for China and Russia, which is why Western powers will do everything they can to derail the project along the way - similar to what they have been doing with the Eurasian Economic Union.

As usual, a lot of good material to ponder. I was left with more questions than answers regarding the idea of Russia getting access to Armenia. Of course, it may just be a move to force Georgia to give better access, something we can be sure NATO is fighting. So what territory from Georgia would make a difference?

When it comes to the Ukraine, there are a dozen ways to look at things, and this was certainly a good overview. Perhaps the best thing from a Russia point of view is that it is uniting Russia, and, perhaps more importantly, uniting most of the elite. A lot of Russia's problems over the last 25 years came from being weak, but just as many came from being unsure of what stands to make and the entanglements of their oligarchs. They should have made deals with China earlier, and it is criminal that they left so much of their financial system open to such drastic blackmail.

It seems to me that a big card in Russia's hands is the ability to turn the Ukraine into a failed state. This will be painful for Germany and Poland, very painful. Something that many would argue that I didn't notice in the article was that the US wanted to break the Ukraine and Russia wanted to keep it together sans Crimea. This may not have been a good strategy for Russia, but, in any case, it is now likely that the Donbass can't be put in a united Ukraine. Thus, the US achieved that goal and it forces Russia to consider alternative visions of what to do. Similarly, one can make the case that the shelling going on today is simply to make Kharkov not want to rebel. If life is miserable in the Donbass, nobody will rebel.

On the weapons front, those look impressive. Still, I wonder how relevant they will be for Russia's coming fights. Syria was ready for a tank war in the desert or Golan Heights. Big mistake. Who is ready for thousands of bird drones attacking with explosives? Add some GPS or other beacons, and you could have a thousand take different routes and reach one destination at one time.

When you hear Russian officials or experts publicly making statements about punching through Georgia to link up with the 102nd base, it's primarily meant for Georgian consumption. So, yes, it is a threat against Tbilisi... but that does not mean it's a bluff. If push comes to shove (i.e. if there is a major war in the region and Armenia or the 102nd base is threatened) Russian forces will move south from South Ossetia and create a land corridor with Armenia.

Regarding Ukraine: As you said, there are many ways of looking at the crisis. Yes, the war in Ukraine awakened patriotism in Russia and forced the country's West-leaning liberals into indefinite hibernation. Collectively, Russians are in a defensive, fortress mood and more-and-more of them are beginning to hate the political West. And that's good. Also, the recent crisis has forced Russians to reconsider their post-Soviet, Western inspired financial/banking system and begin seeking ways to make it less vulnerable to Western manipulation. More importantly, the crisis has really forced Russians to abandon all hopes in the West and instead look East. I cannot think of a time when Russian-Chinese (and Indian) relations and cooperation was this good. All this is a direct result of the war in Ukraine and Western aggression against Russia. All this is a strategic setback for Western powers.

I have spoken extensively about Ukraine in previous blog commentaries. In short: Moscow would have preferred Ukraine to remain whole but fully within the Russian orbit. But since Western meddling took that option away in the winter of 2013/2014, Moscow did the next best thing: It took Crimea and turned the eastern Ukraine into a battle zone thereby effectively derailing Kiev's membership in NATO and the EU. The best case prognosis for Ukraine now is that it will be a poor/desolate buffer zone between Russia and NATO. And Novorossiya has effectively been "Karabakhaized". Novorossiya may not be absorbed into Russia just yet but it surely wont go back under Kiev either.

Although the West did succeed in driving a wedge between Moscow and Kiev, Moscow has extracted the best out of a terrible situation by annexing Crimea and Karabakhizing Novorossiya. Although the West has succeeded in driving a wedge between Moscow and the EU, Moscow has responded by fully turning East.

How does any of this benefit the West? In the short term, Russia will hurt somewhat as a result of the mess created by the West, but in the long term the West will be the real loser in all this.

Regarding the weapons you saw during the Victory Day military parade in Moscow: They are primarily meant to be Russia's insurance against a theoretical/potential war against NATO. Also, from a military perspective, the new, revolutionary weapons Moscow is procuring is encouraging the development and evolution of new war fighting technologies for the 21 century - as well as supporting the nation's military industrial complex.

For other war scenarios, don't worry, a bulk of Russia's military hardware will be Soviet era weaponry for a long time...

PS: What the public was shown during the military parade is only the tip of the iceberg.

I suspect Russia has a good strategy in talking about linking up with Armenia. The argument in favor or NATO and the EU has been full of unrealistic promises, just as was the case for Kiev. By saying, "The real world is a tough place, and Georgia will suffer badly if it makes the wrong choice.", Russia puts all the pragmatists who like the West in a big bind. Particularly as NATO hasn't been willing to actually protect them.

A similar situation might be taking place in Azerbaijan, but you would likely have a much better idea of that. Russia can remind Baku that they live in a brutal neighborhood, and a few weapons from Israel or NATO won't change that.

On the weapons front, there is no question that Russia is undergoing quite a renaissance. I still have my doubts about robot tanks, but they are clearly impressive. I happen to spend a bit of time on some of the many Russian blogs that cover military matters, and one guy I follow had a piece on how he thought what we could see was largely a front to hide the actual preparations for war in the background. He argues that there has been a plan to move some or most of Moscow's important functions to the Urals and that a lot of the PC crap in the West, such as women in special forces, is just theater while the war preps are feverishly taking place in the shadows.

If the West's Operation Barbarossa has shown anything, it is that Russia has to get rid of the Western financial and economic system. If you use MasterCard, don't complain that all the spending by those working in military affairs are examined by the US. Find a guy with financial problems and there goes a rocket. Unfortunately, Putin has been reluctant to go after the neoliberal foundation of things.

As for your question of how the war atmosphere against Russia and China helps the West, well, that is the big question. My guess is that the secret weapons and fear about China developing its own high-tech complex force matters. The West can't afford to wait ten years at this point. Just a guess, of course.

" As I have alluded to on countless previous occasions: For the past seventy years they have meticulously and systematically set-up the playing field as well as the rules of the game. Regardless of who you are, if you want to play, you have to play on their turf and under their terms. They have you already speaking their language, using their financial institutions, trading in their money, studying in their educational establishments, listening to their news, wearing their clothes, entertaining yourself to their pop culture... They have you conditioned. Once you are operating within their system and living within their paradigm, they control you and you are vulnerable. You are thus forced to play the game obediently, or else. In short: We live in their world. They see the world as their playground and they see us as their possessions."

Being free wouldn't cure them of their desire to dominate Eastern Europe and steal Russia's resources. It is something Germans just can't cure. Then add on top of that the Anglo-Zionist control since WWII and it is not a pretty sight. And Russian elites have been remiss in not recognizing that they simply can't join the West as some kind of big Germany.

It might be more realistic to see Japan break free of the Empire, but that, too, is a big question mark.

The problem with Japan breaking out of US influence is that without American "protection" the Japanese would have to increase the size of their military, and given their past actions during WWII, that is something China is adamantly against. Unlike the Philippines which has a weak military, Japan has a formidable military but they're not a formal military force due to Article Nine which forbids them from having an army in the first place.

Zoravar, thank you for the excellent article about Novorossiya. Strelkov is a enigma. I didn't know the movement started with a truck load of volunteers. Do you think the movement will spread to Odessa?

Re: Armata tanks. I was expecting it have a low exposure gun turret. Why is it so bulky?

I also want to thank Zoravar for his captivating narrative about the war in Novorossiya.

You actually asked a very good question about the Armata tank. All previous renderings of it showed the turret with a highly slopped armor. I'll let Zoravar explain why the final product looks the way it does but in my opinion it has to do with the robotics that went into the design.

The Armata is revolutionary concept in armored combat vehicles in that it is a weapons "platform" and has the potential to go fully robotic in the future. Due to the way it is designed, many different variations of the vehicle can be put together merely by interchanging parts. Moreover, if the tank turret gets knocked out in combat, a new turret can be installed. And the fascinating part here is that due to its design it all can be done on or near the battlefield. Also, perhaps for the first time in its history, the design clearly shows that Moscow is taking crew comfort and survivability very seriously. All in all, a very impressive and revolutionary weapons platform. Just when we thought the concept of the main battle tank is dead, it is alive and well.

I would like to state loud and clear that the law and everything about it is absolute bullshit. These western legal institutions are completely illegitimate and politicized. In fact, other than politics and the make-believe world of the entertainment media, the legal systems of western countries are where the single greatest concentrations of liars and their filthy lies - or as Arevordi likes to say "reptiles in suits" - come together. The only difference between the law versus other manifestations of bullshit is that attorneys and judges do a slightly better job of maintaining a false veneer of "respectability".

Of course the western legal system can occasionally serve its people. For example, if you are a nobody and you have some minor grievance against another nobody, or if you are a nobody but you have a grievance against a powerful somebody who also just happens to be the target of other powerful forces, then you may end up getting some redress for your cause of action in western legal systems. But that's not saying much; you would have the same protection in a country like Armenia or Russia. The fact is that western legal systems almost never punish the rich and powerful, and certainly never punish the true powers behind the governing elite, like the heads of the corporation which are currently raping their own nations. This is because at its core the western legal systems reach levels of corruption that make FIFA look like a well-oil machine run by angels. How else, for example, could anyone explain how the highest body of US judges whoring themselves out to the powerful, exemplified by ridiculous decisions like "corporations are people" or the recent Citizens United case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC). Only rarely due to inter-elite rivalries or emergency situations do some powerful people get punished, either as scapegoats (like bernie madoff) or as a losing faction (like dominique strauss kahn).

I focus on this topic because "the need for legal reform" and "corrupt, non-independent judges" are some of the more common allegations leveled against Armenia. These accusations often come from big-mouthed, small-dicked "Armenians" in the diaspora who are always badasses when it comes to shit-talking against Armenia while they themselves like in Glendale or Washington. But these very same worthless "Armenians" are oddly silent when the "fair and balanced" courts of the "land of the free" demonstrate corruption and issue rulings which obviously were ordered from the top echelons of power, like when they essentially tell told Armenians to shove their Armenian Genocide reparation demands up their own asses, as was recently the case with the federal courts in California (Ninth Circuit), a decision which the almighty US Supreme Court made clear that it had absolutely no problems with by refusing the even hear an appeal on the Ninth Circuit's anti-Armenian decision. (see http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=2287)

While we're on the topic, somebody ask the democracy now(!) scum who keep bitching and moaning about democracy, how effective "democracy" is in the US when a group of nine unelected judges, who are almost completely out of touch with the average American (not to mention out of touch with the times, technology, the real world, pretty much anything that they cannot immediately experience inside the ivory tower they work in), have the power to completely reject rules made by "elected officials" or through direct votes (like California's prop 8 which banned homosexual "marriage")..... Oh well I guess we all know that asking any of the democracy now(!) activists to actually explain democracy is the same as asking a toddler to explain complex trigonometric theorems - you're just expecting too much.

Anyway, back to the article. I hope the article. I actually hope the Euro court votes against Russia. It will only highlight the fact that the west is anti-Russian, which will serve the purpose of rallying Russians behind their flag and their great President, and it will further squeeze the remaining liberals inside Russia. In fact, such a decision would only set the Euro court on the path to its own destruction.

Spydell, a Russian blogger, had a nice piece on how the Russian elite's pleas against the unfairness of the world over the last twenty years of Western abuse have been absurd. Courts, fairness, and all the things the West talks about only exist when power is aligned so that it is in the interests of the more powerful to agree to limiting his power. There are no courts or fairness for Nigeria or most of Africa. The West does what it wants or can.

Russians of a pro-Western bent have been masters at failing to see the obvious. The systems used in the West are only fair when they want them to be, such as when one under their control has a dispute with another. So a dispute between Spain and Portugal requires some sense of law. A dispute between Russia and Italy is an entirely different matter, as they don't own Russia. The Western financial oligarchs, that is.

All the pleas of the weak are hard to understand. Russia didn't complain about a coup in Honduras, so what is the complaint with one in Kiev?

This may be off topic, but can some who understands economics please explain to me how and why a tiny country such as Greece would have such an effect on US stocks, as its being purported in the news?? Why is Greece always in the news and cited as a factor in US economy and stocks? I mean I could clearly understand how a deterioration in the Russian economy could affect Armenia immensely, (yet not the other way around), but Greece affecting the US economy?? c'mon...

Shofer, I am not an expert in the field of economics but in my opinion the danger Greece poses to the US is primarily political. If Greece goes bankrupt and defaults on its commitments to the Western financial system, it will then have a dire effect on the US. This is a major danger because the Western economic/financial system (i.e. the Bretton Woods paradigm) is a fancy house-of-cards. The system in question looks very stable and pretty but it has no firm foundation, it lives only because it forces nations to borrow money from it, hold reserves in its currency and trade in its currency. Once you have a serious break in the system, the hype fades away and the flaws/vulnerabilities become apparent. There is a danger that this may have a domino effect in other part of the world that operate within the Western system. This is not to say that a Greek default will not have any direct effect on the US economy. There is substantial amounts of US assets in Greece that may be lost. But the major concern is political. My opinion.

It's about a) making sure that the cockroach theory doesn't hold, i. e. that the Latin countries of Europe do not follow. b) it's all about the first leg of NWO, that is, that the EU in conjunction with the fiat Euro currency doesn't fall apart, which would be a huge setback to their plan of destroying the Nation-States and Nations for the benefit of the Anglo-American-Zionists.

BTW the people's bank of China is part of the NWO Central Bankers club. One of the key things I'm looking for is clarification of whether Putin can break out of the SWIFT system on the way to taking full control of Russia's Central bank. He is the ONLY one left who is dedicated to keeping his nation independent of the Imperium, which means being independent of its Currency System and Its Central Banking System.

Greece is kaput economically and demographically. Greece is the latrine of the mediterranean. The turks vomit all the pseudo refugees, illegals, and other thrild world flotsam, passing through turkish territory, onto the Aegean islands and the Evros, and the putrid government of the maoist-marxist-squalid socialist Syriza lies supine and smiles. The nationalists , the leadership cadres of the nationalists are all in jail under spurious charges which the Zionist gang of Samaras-Venizelos brought upon them and the Tsipras gangsters continue holding them under lock and key. The best thing for Greece is to get out of the EU gulag, kick out all the refugees and illegals from the land and regain their sovereignty. Out of the Euro and into the drachma, a three year old currency. When the nationalists come out jail and get control of the government they can bring about a close approchement with Russia. There is a lot of zionist control in Greece, the government gnomes are just marionettes who dance to the tune of "Hava Nagela". The Tsipras government is planning to hand out travel documents to the invaders, so that these sham refugees cum criminals of the invasion force can be funneled throughout the EU gulag. The game plan is population replacement, and the mediterranean basin , Greece and Italy and Spain , are becoming huge concentration camps for the invasion army. In 1993 President Turgut Ozal pronounced that Turkey does not need weapons or army to take care of Greece; they will overrun Greece through muslim immigration/invasion. Tsukras

Hey everyone, look at another fine example of a golden Englishman doing what they do best: getting on their knees for Turks. There are so many things I could say here, but I will limit it to just saying that I am extremely happy to know that, demographically-speaking, the garbage English race and their crappy country which produce scum like Robert Walter, is doomed to total bastardization and eventual/inevitable collapse. It is an ironic form of justice that while the elites of England are whoring themselves to Turks, the Muslims in England are literally kidnapping, raping, and whoring the underage daughters of the English... There are some Armenians who are degenerate Anglophiles - these people need to be isolated from Armenian society, and further committed to mental institutions where psychosurgery can be performed to cure their illness.

Also take a note of the biased reporting by the CIA's "azatutyun" service. They whitewash the British asshole's actions, and minimize the damage done to Armenia. Being handed Turkish citizenship personally by anti-Armenian extremist Mehmet Cavushoglu, and defending Azerbaijan's dismal human rights record in discussions regarding Artskah are inherently anti-Armenian actions, there is no justification for azatutyun to put quotations around the words "Anti-Armenian" in its title. Too bad Armenians are so easy going and passive, I kind of wish a large group of "peaceful protestors" would bring "freedom and justice" to azatutyun's offices in Armenia, as was the case in Ukraine and Syria. I think it could happen if some the Yerevan or Moscow focused more on establishing and funding their own variety of "civil society"... And while I'm on Cavushoglu, let's all remember how happy the western-funded oppositionist whore Zaruhi Boz-stenchian made him when she attacked Armenia's President (figuratively beheaded Armenia's President in the style of the self-destructive peasantry who Mkhitar Sparapet who 285 years old suffered the same tragic fate literally).

Also, here is the EU for you. It's corrupt to high hell and overflowing with Turkophile scum. So I don't even pay attention to Armenians who want to join the EU anymore, because that ship has sailed; and if any Armenians (like the homos and the half-Turkic one) are unhappy with Armenia under the Eurasian Union then they can fly to Sweden or France and apply for refugee status, the local Muslim majorities will "take care" of them. Instead, I find it more offensive when I hear Armenians talk about "shared European values". What values? Denying or whitewashing the Armenian Genocide? Getting on their knees in order to suck out every last drop of oil and gas from Azerbaijan? Arming and supporting terrorists in Syria so that Kessab and the other Armenian communities there are subjected to massacre? Whoring themselves to Turks? Atheism? Extreme bigotry and (when possible) outright ethnic cleansing against Orthodox Christian peoples like Serbs in occupied/Turkified Kosovo or occupied/Turkified Northern Cyprus? Debt-slavery and austerity? Holocaustiantiy as a state religion, protected be anti-heresy laws? Militant feminism? Childlessness and voluntaru extinction? Homosexual propaganda aimed at children? Open-borders? Mass-immigration of genetically and culturally incompatible peoples, topped off with forced integration as that clown Sarkozy demands? Interracialism? GMOs? Sorry, but those "values" are the exact opposite of Armenian values, and the two are mutually exclusive. There is just no way to reconcile the two systems - one is right and one is wrong; one must be destroyed so that the other prevails and there is no way that the two systems can be "complimentary". As an Armenian who respects my heritage, let me make it clear and borrow a line from Nuland: Fuck Europe and their degenerate values.

The Europe we shared values with is no longer with us. Everything you described about Europe today is accurate. Europe has decayed beyond recognition. But let's also recognize that it's a by-product of a continent suffering seventy years of Anglo-American-Jewish occupation.

The trick is to not catch the sickness yourself, not to simply hate it. Even better, have a healthy society. For example, are there young people wearing clothes with the death's head on them? That is popular in many countries now.

In other words, the sickness is really a spiritual one. And Europe has turned into a cesspool. They even have animal bordellos, or at least it seems so.

Arevordi, I understand your point. The west of the past is dead. The reason I made the general statements attacking the west is because I've had to radically reexamine my views on the potential of the west today. Without the emotional filters it becomes easier to hate them. Most of the smaller Catholic or Protestant European countries are outright useless (Czech Republic or Hungary), while most of the larger European/western countries are downright enemies (Britain, France, Germany, the USA). Despite whatever achievements these countries may have had, they've easily done and are continuing to do more damage to Armenia and the other eastern/Orthodox heirs of the Byzantine Empire than have the Jews, Turks or other Muslims. And their role would not change even if the Jews, corporations, and corrupt wealthy elite could be extricated from western countries. So I really find it hard to feel anything else for the continent.

Now, I wouldn't have any strong feelings for them if they did not pose an existential threat to Armenia, just like I don't have any strong feelings for Japan or Chile or Zimbabwe (despite the fact that I personally find Japanese culture and achievements fascinating, while I personally look down at Zimbabwe. But unlike the Africans, Asians and South Americans, the west continually produces scum like robert walter and continues its psych-war against Armenia. So hatred, while admittedly ugly, is only a natural reaction to this situation. I actually hope that most Armenian patriots feel the same way , even if they do not express it openly like I just did.

From my point of view: A century ago there was a situation where western Armenia had two, mutually exclusive potential futures: either Armenians would win and populate and dominate the region, or the Turks and Kurds would win and populate the region. It was obvious the two could not exists together in the same space much longer. We know what happened there. Today there is a parallel battle for mutually exclusive values which is being fought in Armenia, and actually all around the world as well. One set of values will have to prevail, the other be destroyed. The borders and battle lines are clearly drawn, the states of the world have mostly been drafted into either camp (places like Ukraine are still up for grabs), and no amount of wishful thinking is going to lead to any sort of national liberation movement or renaissance in western countries like Germany or even Greece.

Besides, westerns themselves often use Social Darwinism to justify claims that they are superior to all others, including Armenians. The current facts on the ground indicate that their smug confidence was unjustified.

I know these queers are mere puppets controlled by the Anglo-American-Zionist Alliance, but I simply cannot understand the level of stupidity of the individuals involved. There reasoning goes something like:

You can easily prove that not all Jews are bad. One occasionally runs across good Jewish folk, individuals who are more or less normal and helpful, or at least not hate-crazed war-mongers. Yet somehow these "nazis" manage to get on their knees for the likes nuland, mccain, bob menendez, and other neoconservatives aka ultra-extreme zionists - the absolute worst type of scum in the world.

It has been said before and it bears repeating: ukrs are nothing more than filthy animals. It would be interesting to know exactly how many of these filthy ukr animals were fighting on behalf of the Azeris in 1988 - 1994, how many were captured and put out of their misery by the Armenian freedom fighters.

The author is a kike bitch... every time I say something nice about kikes they always remind me why I hate the great majority of them... The actions of their majority strongly overwhelms any positive energy created by the handful of decent jews that exist.

The question is whether the deracination policies of globalization, multiculturalism can be arrested and reversed. This is particularly important for the few outstanding pockets of nation states , of which Armenia is one. Multiculturalism, mass movement of races acros the planet, open borders , is sweeping races and nations into oblivion. We must ensure Armenia does not become engulfed in this destructive process. We have not preserved our identity for centuries in order to succumb now to globalization, multicultural infusion and modern day ethnocide. Piper

The process of globalization, multiculturalism, interracialism and the mass movements of races across borders will only be arrested or reversed when the Anglo-American-Jewish political order is defeated by the likes of Russia and China. For humanity to preserve its natural diversity, Western global hegemony has to be toppled.

When the money is worth nothing, the idea will be worth just as much. They have fucked the dollar to death, yet still going around the world dancing. The very same ideas used to topple countries all over the world are breading like cancer on home turf. Hubris, a lower level of disaster, as it has not manifested itself fully yet, but spread it's roots like a cancer. The pot calling the cattle black, does not change the fact that they are all born of fire.

Globalization is nothing new, let us not take for granted that prehistoric man had a global trade network. Globalization is not the enemy, the use of the word globalization is a misnomer. The printing of unending dollars to buy everything on gods earth we equate to globalization, this is a mistake. The dollar has been used and excepted for face value till this point. The dollars use is waning and waning hard, no longer can empire be kept by merely putting some green ink on paper. All the ills that have come from the misuse of empire can't simply be blamed on globalization. We have always been global, let us not throw the babe out with the bathwater.

Vahram, what you are describing is not Globalization but cross-cultural fertilization, cross-border trade, international relations, mercantilism, peaceful coexistence, etc. The word "Globalism" or "Globalization" was coined by modern day Marxists/Socialists (i.e. George Soros types) to essentially mean the fusing all nations into one racially mixed, Godless, nation-less, gender-confused, English speaking breed of humanoids living under the mercy of the Anglo-American-Jewish world order. Globalism or Americanization or Westernization IS the enemy.

Why this? I'd like to hear some thoughts on this matter. Why is it that every major state institution needs to be either run, overseen, or outright bought by foreigners? Hydro dam, US purchased it, don't know why. Postal service just went private. Now this. To my knowledge this pipeline was the brainchild of Iran/Armenian efforts, that is why there was a limitation set on imports due to its diameter. Why was this sale necessary, this was not a leftover vestige of the Soviet era, yet it seems somehow our current administration cannot seem to get actual Armenian humans to run these places, so they sale them at a bargain. I'm no Russophobe by any measure, I value our strategic alliance, yes I know Russia is consolidating power, but seriously though, there needs to be a soft ceiling here, sale of all these major services makes us look like incompetent jackoffs on our own land and state.

There is talk about Iranian gas reaching to Europe and at least one possible route is via Armenia and Georgia. Armenia-Iran gas pipeline was sold to Gasprom a while ago, the urgency to complete the deal now i think is connected to above mentioned reason. Gasprom wants to be part of the negotiations between Iran and EU. We are pretty much tangled in Gas wars between Russia and EU. That said I think Armenia got something for yielding control of that pipeline. These type of strategically important stuff do not change hands for nothing.

Sasounci Davit, I agree with TK. I think the sale is geopolitical in nature, it has nothing to do with greed, corruption, treason, ect. We need to sober up and understand that right now the stakes in the region are too high. It wouldn't be stretch of the imagination to say that Russia and the West are on the verge of a war. For Russia, natural gas production and distribution - especially to Europe - is as important as their nuclear deterrence. Gas supplies to foreign nations has been Moscow's most effective strategic weapon in recent years. I therefore do not expect them to change their approach to "pipeline politics" for Armenia's sake. Genocide recognition for Armenia's sake is one thing, this is a whole different ball game. With that said, had Armenia been a powerful and wealthy nation - or perhaps a nation less inclined to flirt with Western powers - we might have expected Russians to allow us more control over such matters. But Armenia is not powerful, not wealthy and in the eyes of Russians - official Yerevan is not very reliable. The best we can expect at this juncture is for Yerevan to at least negotiate a good transit fee or some other benefit for the country. Anyway, the following article Robertik posted several days ago is quite revealing of the serious concerns Russians have towards Yerevan's "complimentary politics" -

US Trying to Pry Armenia out of Russia's Orbit: http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/us-trying-pry-armenia-out-russias-orbit/ri7606

The West and Russia are in a war hotter than the old Cold War, and the US regularly uses bribes and violence to have leaders sell their countries down the river. So Russia can only rely on her army, navy, and Gazprom.

If Armenia wants more independence, she needs to get rid of all the Western agents and assets. Then Russia wouldn't be so paranoid.

As for things like privatizing the post office, was that to crush civil servants or what?

Like I said before, developing countries need large, state-connected conglomerates to manage their infrastructure. Armenia's government is too small, indebted, and frankly not qualified to run something like an energy distribution system, so it will have to be managed from Moscow, just like during the relatively stable Soviet era. Yerevan would have eventually sold the pipeline anyway, I'd rather that is be safely under Moscow's supervision than owned by the west or by Iranians.

As for haypost, it has been working with foreign (European) companies for a long time. It has had European managers. It was in terrible shape after the Soviet collapse and needed massive restructuring. Armenia's government simply lacked the resources and expertise to get the job done. Privatizing it was more of a business decision than anything else. Again, large businesses will be state run. Until Armenian society reaches a level of evolution and maturity where it creates officials and a government which is competent enough to run large business ventures, large state owned assets will have to run by private organizations. Armenia's best hope is if those private corporations are actually state-owned Russian enterprises, as was the case in the past.

Armenia also sold Armenian Railways to Russia's state-owned railways around 2008, since then there has been a decent repair and modernization program. Same with its aluminum production industry. And its telecom industry. I'm looking forward to the time when, with Russian support, many of the idle Soviet-era factories in Armenia are refurbished and brought back to full production; I think the Eurasian Union is the best chance for this to happen.

"Notice that this is a yank of the blanket from under the elderly in Ukraine. “Useless eaters,” they are assigned to the trash can. How do the deceived Maiden student protesters feel now that they are culpable in the destruction of their grandparents’ support systems? Do these gullible fools still believe in the Washington-orchestrated Maiden Revolution? The crimes in which these stupid students are complicit are horrific. "

Great commentary, thank you both Arevordi and Zoravar.Always enjoy reading about military matters. With all the advances Russia is making anglosaxons have no chance in a fight with Russians. Whenever i am browsing TV channels in the evening i come across some reality or other shows to see someone crying. Americans are crying literally about everything, either their dad changed his orientation, either their girlfriend cheated on them, etc. Seriously i cannot imagine them fighting with Russians, American nation has lost any honour, bravery, respect or toughness. I guess this is why they need to make new enemies for Russia so they could do the fighting for them.

T.K. you have a very good point. I don't know how often the audience here has a chance to interact with teenage and twenty-something Americans or to view the pop culture which is specifically directed at them, but they are all totally screwed up. Pop culture gets more decadent and degenerate every year, things that were unthinkable even as late as the 1990s or early 2000s are now promoted as normal and in fact desirable. Homosexuality and interracial marriage was being pushed a few years back, now they have moved on to mainstreaming transsexualism and other mental illnesses. I was watching a movie on tv earlier this morning, a commercial break came on and the television network ABC was promoting a new show about a family "everyone is becoming somebody; the daughter is becoming a wife, the son is becoming a soldier or whatever; Charlie (the father) is becoming Carly (a tranny faggot)". This is literally one out of hundreds of examples; and it is especially damaging because most westerners are so dumbed-down and drugged-out that they cannot compehend that what they see on the media is not reality, instead most westerners model their behavior and values on whatever they learn from the media.

I don't see how such a rotten society can expect to remain on top of the world for another generation. Psychotic people may be dangerous when you give them guns and unleash them against civilians in defenseless third-world countries, but they lack the courage and discipline to take on a competent foe like Russia. The west is declining and degenerating very rapidly, internally and at its core. For all of their backwardness, when I compare westerners to Asians, it appears to me that Asians have a much better future.

What surprises me is that normal people, especially normal White people, have not yet started revolting against their governments. It is not exactly a secret that they are targeted for destruction, and that their children are particularly vulnerable and their futures look extremely bleak. I guess they are too fat, too demoralized, too dumb, too medicated, too brainwashed, or too selfish to give a damn as America heads down the path of the Roman Empire.

White, Western society has been destroyed. A significant percentage of Whites in the US can't read properly, or even calculate change for a transaction in a store. Some readers here may not have visited the US in the last ten years, but that is actually the case. However, it is the "silent war" that many have talked about. It is hard for people to resist what they cannot see or understand. Obviously, a big part of that war is to normalize deviance, insanity, and bad habits. There apparently is even a TV series with a serial killer as a "hero", or so I have heard.

However, a question out of this is what the plans of the City of London/Anglo-Zionists may be. Many in technology ask if the future needs humans that much, and the black budget of the US is unbelievable. Just as an obvious example, it you posit that the US went to the Moon in 1969, what do you think they can do now? Classified work is typically decades ahead of what the masses can see. My bet is that the PTB have made a bet on a high-tech future, so 90% of the people in the West can be gotten rid of.

Living in Asia, and travelling around a fair bit, I would say Asia is in tremendously better shape, whether morally or just in terms of a purpose in life. And the rich elites seem to want a mistress, not a young boy.

Thank you for your lucid observations, Eurasian. I would only add that the agenda is not primarily against whites/westerners but against all of humanity. It's only that whites are an easier (captive) target. In my opinion, they want to - engineer - a human society that is gender confused and devoid of spiritually, nationalism, traditional family values and indigenous cultures. In other words, they want eating, breathing, English speaking robots. The ultimate intent? A smaller, more easily manageable global population living at the mercy of the global elite. Technology essentially makes their agenda all that more doable...

Just a point of curiosity. Who is bedros hajian ?. He is a journalist, and he has a program on TV. He makes interesting commentaries, but many times one wonders wether he is factual or not. I heard him in one of his programs lashing out at the West, Zionism, and how Armenia's were being assimilated in this cesspool of degeneracy. On the other hand he comes up with comments about another genocide in the making with the alignment of Russia and Turkey in an alliance. He rings a discordant note, and one wonders what is his point. His message appears to be a hopeless one. Genocide in the West in the mixing and blending of the Jewish - American degenerate world in which Armenians are being assimilated at a rapid pace, on the other hand the ongoing depopulation of Armenia through emigration leading to an Armenia without Armenians. He paints a darkening scenario, and does not offer strategies of escape or survival. He had a guest in his programs of mr Berkens ?, who in very meticulous detail condemns the hidden Jewish Karbala as the architects of the genocide. The young Turks, a Jewish creation in which many Armenians were inducted in collaborating with their own extermination. I heard his program for the first time.

I have noticed the same thing about Hajian and I have the same questions/concerns about him. In my opinion, he is most probably a good intentioned weirdo. But, if we were to figure-out what/who his political rhetoric serves best, I would say Turks. By blaming Jews for the genocide and by fear-mongering about Armenia's government and Russia, Hajian, whether he realizes it or not, serves Turkish interests.

I dislike Hajian, from what I know he is a Protestant reverend and therefore unreliable as far as I am concerned. When it comes to Armenian socio-political issues, I automatically disregard anything that the protestants, catholics, members of other cults, and athiests have to "contribute" - some people may look down on me for making such a blanket generalization but I have learned through experience that avoiding the fake Armenians is 100% effective with absolutely no negative side-effects. If Hajian is spreading Russophobia and anti-Armenia sentiments, it is probably largely influenced by the fact that he is a Protestant and therefore incompatible with healthy Orthodox nations like Russia, and unhappy with the special relationship between the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Republic of Armenia. I think this is the same Hajian from a 2001 article, it gives some background:

As for Christopher Jon Bjerknes, he authored a text called "The Jewish Genocide of Christian Armenians" as well as two books on the Einstein Fraud. While I appreciate Bjerknes highlighting the Jewish role in the Armenian Genocide, like Arevordi said in the end he is basically exonerating the Turks by blaming everything on the Jews. In reality , Turks, Kurds, Circassians, Germans, Jews as well as to a slightly less direct extent British, French, and other Europeans all have Armenian blood on their hands, and a lot of liability to spread among themselves.

Bjerknes is supposedly one-quarter jew and three-quarters German and has converted to Christianity. He also happens to be a rabid Russophobe spreading idiotic fairytales along the lines of "Putin is a zionist agent". Bjerknes appears to be quite motivated, as his books and his blog posts are very, very long. This is his vitriolic blog filled with anti-Putin fabrications:

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/

In my opinion Bjerknes is a nutjob. Others have pointed out that given the amount of work he publishes and the political nature of his work, he may be some sort of intelligence operative, which also seems very plausible.

I have been reading this blog for some time now and agree with pretty much everything. I never knew we could comment until Sarkis86 told me. Keep up the good work and i hope i can contribute in some way.

I had a question for you Arevordi. One article i was reading you said you managed to go Kremlin and talk some people at the Kremlin - how did you manage that? I lost the link to that article would like to read it again but couldn't find it.

Gev, I see you got banned from hyeclub. Congratulations, that is an indication that you were fighting on the right side in the information war. That place might as well be called Turkclub. I had not logged on probably for over year, I made an exception to invite you here.

I saw your last message where you asked me what I believe will happen to Artsakh. Ten years ago when - thanks to the Anglo-American-Jewish alliance - the BTC oil pipeline came into operation, I was very worried that Azerbaijan would use its new income to overtake Armenia militarily. Thank God that through capable leadership and through the crucial Russia-Armenia alliance, Armenia has more or less maintained parity or superiority to Azerbaijan in the military sphere, even though Azerbaijan has a military budget that is ten times larger than Armenia, not to mention ~2.5 times the population. Now that the Azeri economy is slowing down, I believe there is no reasonable way Azerbaijan can ever become stronger than Armenia.

That being said, it seems that the Armenian government is content with the status quo, we control almost all of Artsakh and we are defending the high ground which we have fortified and reinforced over the years. In the last few months we saw the Armenian military, particularly young Armenian conscripts, successfully repel Azeri subversion attacks carried out by Azerbaijan's best troops. It is very tragic that every year we know some Armenian soldiers will be martyred on the frontlines, but overall the situation is stable and easily manageable.

You mentioned giving some land back in exchange for peace. That is always a possibility. Some land being returned may allow the Aliyev regime to save face domestically, while Armenia and Artsakh can reunite. I question whether it can happen, though, because for one thing Aliyev has based his legitimacy on anti-Armenian hysteria. It seems Azerbaijan's entire national identity is based on "fuck those evil Armenians." He has pumped up his own people's desire for war, so he has very little room to maneuver now... But the key factor is Russia. The South Caucasus has been Russia's sphere of domination for the past 200+ years, and thank God because that is the key reason Armenia exists in a region full of Turks, Iranians, other Muslims, western/Jewish imperial interests, and Georgians. Russia will remain dominant in the region for the foreseeable future because if Russia loses Armenia, it will lose the entire South Caucasus forever, and after that it will be only a short time before it loses the North Caucasus to NATO-backed Islamists, not to mention the danger of losing the whole of Central Asia to NATO-backed Islamists. Russia is the alpha and omega of the region (even if the big-talking, under-performing Armenian Diaspora gets hurt feelings when confronted with this fact). If Russia decides to force a peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Armenia will keep Artsakh and at a minimum it will keep Berdzor (Lachin) and probably Karvachar (Kelbajar). Everything else depends on how good Armenian officials are at negotiating with Moscow. The lack of an organized lobbying presence inside Russia is really troubling for this reason. The key to lasting peace in Artsakh is in Moscow; incidentally, the keys to freedom for Javakhk as well as the road to Western Armenia are all in Russia.

Armenia will never start a war, not even after the Azeris shot down our helicopter. Yerevan probably calculates that the potential risk and costs outweigh any potential gains, while the last thing Moscow needs is a giant South Caucasian headache as it deals with Syria and Ukraine. But if Azerbaijan gets desperate and does something stupid, I am sure Armenia will get the green light and some additional support to permanently solve the Azeri threat.

Arevordi and others have written at length about the topic, they may have some interesting things to say

Sarkis i got banned for telling them how it is...they have a user named 'Chubs' no doubt he is a turk/azeri he went spastic at me so i told him how it is.......and instead of a turk getting banned they banned me.

Who cares anyway....they are just hurt because i told them how it really is. Thanks for that write up things are clear Sarkis & Arevordi.

Goddam frog author went out of his way to insert anti-Armenian messages into his article, including the false accusation that the Armenian helicopter attacked Azeris before it was shot down (easily shown to be false by the video that the Azeri idiots themselves posted to the Internet), and the bullshit claim that it was Armenians who instigated a "military incursion" into Azerbaijan when in reality it was the Azeris who launched an incursion into Armenian territory and then were chased back to their starting positions.

Not a single tear should be shed that Frogland has become an African and Middle Eastern dumping ground, a process which I am glad can never be reversed and will ultimately result in the bastardization and destruction of France. The French are NOT Armenia's allies, they never have been and they never will be. Shame on those Frogophile Armenians that revere everything French, and shame on the Armenians who give two-faced French clowns like Sarkozy and Hollande undeserved praise.

As one of our friends pointed out, the presidents of Russia, Serbia, Cyprus, and France were in Armenia on April 24. Out of those four, it was only the French faggot who felt compelled to travel from Armenia directly to Azerbaijan after he finished paying lip service to the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide.

Also the author claims that Armenia joining the Eurasian Union was based on fear and made "little economically rational orientation"? Someone remind that idiot that the EU is the world's worst economic joke, and whatever wealth their ancestors had accumulated over the centuries will be spent by the following decades supporting France's millions-strong Muslim colonists. Idiot.

His entire article implies that Russia and Armenia are responsible for the tensions in the South Caucasus, then he finished with a paragraph calling for more positive behaviors by all of the powers involved. Classic French bullshit.

Don't know if it is within the purview of this blog, but a real issue is whether Russia can ever limit the oligarchs. As Brzezinski roughly said "If your elite have $500 billion in the West, are they your elite, or ours?" A recent conference on the war in the Donbass had Robert Nigmatulin, a rather serious fellow from the Russian Academy of Sciences, say:

"The number of billionaires per unit of GDP. In the first place, Ukraine. In second place - Russia. And only then, by a wide margin, all the rest. Name the country where salary of a professor - ten times less than the salary of Members of Parliament."

In many ways, Russia has social figures down in the Nigerian or Brazilian level, though they are getting better. This is offset by a few things, such as low debt on housing and low taxes, but the issue is a serious one. Besides internal stability, it impacts the kinds of moves Russia can make geopolitically. The fact that Putin could tame Ukrainian-style oligarchs into Russian-style ones is an accomplishment, but really inadequate for standing up to the West.

This isn't meant to be pessimism, or even bad-mouthing Russia. This problem occurred with lots of Western "help". I am, however, a bit disappointed that Putin has been unable to take more anti-neoliberal actions since the coup in Kiev. It is a bit demoralizing, and means that the phrase "Russian Spring" can now only be used in irony or sarcasm.

In many respects, Russia has been and continues to be a backward society. Unlike the rest of the civilized world, Russia was not been able to develop naturally in the modern period because of the utter devastation brought upon by Bolsheviks; the utter devastation brought upon by the Second World War; the isolation Russia was under during the Cold War; and the complete collapse of the Soviet system and its chaotic aftermath. So, for about one hundred years Russians have been primarily worried about survival in a very hostile world. Russia could not have develop naturally during this period, which is why it fell behind the Western world in many socioeconomic and sociopolitical aspects. Therefore, some aspects of Russian society will resemble the Third World.

The good news it that Russians realize this. The better news is that President Putin, for all his military displays, is actually a reformist president. History will look at him as a great reformer of Russian society.

With that said, all societies, regardless of where they are, will have elites (i.e. oligarchs). In fact, it is natural for societies to have financial, economic and political elites. In fact, it's human. The problem with such elites is not their money, it's their politics. When Putin came to town, the elites he chased out were the ones working against Russian interests. In other words, he chased out the ones that had extensive dealings with Russia's enemies and competitors around the world and he put the rest under state control. Today, Russians who have large amounts of money stored in foreign accounts are constantly under surveillance by Russian security agencies.

But do you actually think oligarchs do not exist in the West? The fact is they do. The only difference between the Western oligarchs (the entrenched financial/political elite in the West) and Russian oligarchs is that Western oligarchs closely collaborate with their governments (one could say they have taken over Western governments), whereas Russian oligarchs are not as politically refined and they are not entrenched in Russian society. You could look at the difference between Western and Russian oligarchy as as the difference between old money and new money. Old money is always much more refined and politically wiser than new money.

I do not support Marxism. I am by nature and by preference a constitutional monarchist or national socialist. In my opinion, both of these models need an entrenched, national elite - be it financial, be it political - to operate well. I don't have problems with oligarchs if they are keeping their businesses and their the wealth at home; if they are subordinate to the government; and if they are collaborating with national security.

Speaking of Western "oligarchs" and how effectively they operate within the Western political order: Notice how in the following editorial one media oligarch - the Wall Street Journal - is calling on other Western oligarchs - Coca Cola, Adidas and Visa - to help Western powers take the 2018 World Cup away from Russia. This is how finely-tuned and highly-refined Western oligarchy has become. This is a result of generations of evolution: Old money. This is the kind of wealthy/influential oligarchy Russia (as well as nations like Armenia) needs to develop/evolve -

The Ugly Game: FIFA should take a re-vote on the Qatar and Russia World Cups: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ugly-game-1433544430

Speaking of national socialism as a political model: I am glad Moscow has been heading in that direction for some time now, although for obvious reasons Russians would never label it as such. Nevertheless, reading between-the-lines of the rabidly anti-Putin Wall Street Journal article seen below, we cannot help but see a Russia where nationalism and socialism is developing quite fast and is serving Russia quite well. Consider the following excerpt from the article -

“The government has two urgent tasks: strengthening security at all levels of society and promoting innovation to end the macroeconomic stagnation,” a Kremlin military adviser tells Bloomberg News this week. “The solution to both problems is to intensify the development of the military-industrial complex.” Putin himself, from the site of the recent winter Olympics, on which the regime spent $50 billion, told a meeting of the defense ministry leadership: “We can and must do for the defense industry what we did for Sochi. All questions relating to adequate resource allocation have been resolved.”

Yes, all countries have elites. But what has saved Russia is that some of them are out of the KGB or GRU or even the old Soviet Academy of Sciences. In the Ukraine, it was and is all oligarch, and with most of their money and muscle in the West. That is the difference. But I admit to having read too much Plato.

Where we may disagree is that I have doubts that a nationally-minded oligarchy is possible these days. It somewhat exists in Thailand, but that seems a bit unusual to me. Maybe it exists in Turkey; I don't know. So let me give an example. A Russian oligarch with his kids in school in Western Europe gets his short-term financing from Western banks because the Russian system is intentionally dysfunctional and works for the interests of the West. This oligarch has business deals, such as a 50-50 media operation with, say, Hearst or Bertelsmann. The Western partner brings technology and PR help, but promotes the usual Kardashians and total distraction and dumbing down of the masses. The employees brought in from the West are probably full of agents and assets of some kind. Now, it is nice that this oligarch doesn't directly work for Langley, but the situation is practically a disaster for Russia. Allowing the "Western domination of the information field" is suicidal, of course, but the bigger point is that there are think tanks and serious groups within the West that study countries like a hunter studies his prey. Then they act, and this is how places like Libya or Syria or the Ukraine get destroyed. It is scientific. And a liberal like Putin needs to overcome his liberal tendencies because it is not like free trade between Chile or China, where there are not many desires on one side to dominate the other.

Eurasian, I totally agree with you. We all live in an Anglo-American-Jewish era in human history. Everything we do, we do in their bubble. We essentially live in the ecosphere they meticulously constructed throughout the 20th century. And therein lies the danger. We currently don't have the choice of living in another ecosphere (unless you want to move to North Korea). We currently have to live in this Western reality. But in doing so we also need to see it for what it is and do our part in rising awareness in hopes that someone, someday will put a stop to it. That someone is Russia and to a lesser extent China. Therefore, regardless of our personal biases - be it against Russians, be it against Chinese - we need to hope that Russians and the Chinese will manage to truly create a new, multipolar world order.

Putin is in a difficult position because he understands that if Russia is to be saved it has no choice but to stand-up against the West - while at the same time make sure that Russia does not become too isolationistic and thus stagnant and backward. After all, by doing what they are doing, Western power are hoping to contain/isolate Russia from the rest of the world. Russians therefore shouldn't be helping Western powers in this regard by voluntarily isolating themselves from the rest of the world. In a sense, what Russia's current political elite is trying is a juggling act. Sometimes the things you are juggling will fall to the ground, but you don't have a choice so you keep juggling until the danger passes.

FIFA Confirms Russia Will Be Stripped Of 2018 World Cup If "Evidence Of Bribery" Emergeshttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-07/fifa-confirms-russia-will-be-stripped-2018-world-cup-if-evidence-bribery-emerges

Kurds and Turkish opposition parties said no to the sultan dictator. After years of religious and political hypocrisy, the Islamic brotherhood of Turkey collects the votes of its core electorate base constituting a third of Turkish voters, and the votes of those opportunists who still thought the AKP was a winning card or where afraid from opposing the sultan. Today Erdogan got less than half of the Turkish voters (41%) and will fail to assemble a government,and may even decide to call for early elections in autumn, in which case he will loose even more votes and this marks the beginning of his fall. Erdogan can avoid this fate,only by treachery and bloodshed. Erdogan's dogs may initiate a number of bloody events in Kurdish provinces in order to cancel the results of the elections in those regions and stop the HDP from acquiring sufficient votes to enter the parliament.

Erdogan knows that he can, this time, steal the power in Turkey, but he will not succeed in amending the constitution that grants him permanent and favorable presidential powers. Erdogan knows that by stealing power he will put Turkey on the path of a civil war threatening its unity and stability. In any case, the role of Erdogan in Syria and the region will now shrink.

Here's a map of the elections outcome.https://twitter.com/mathieuvonrohr/status/607623024481828864/photo/1

In hindsight, it would have been better if Adjaria had maintained its autonomy back in 2003/2004. While it seemed to be a logical/pragmatic step at the time, encouraging Aslan Abashidze to flee Georgia proved to be a bad decision by Moscow. Russia and Armenia would have been better off if Ajdaria had maintained its autonomy.

Actually Batumi is a good example of what happens to areas next to Turkey when Russia pulls out and a traitor leader like Saakashili comes in. Pretty much most property in Batumi is now owned by turks. almost all business activities too. The damage is done and they can't get rid of them even if a new leaders come.

I want to emphasize over and over and over again that it was the EU above all which in the 1990s and early 2000s demanded that Georgia import the descendants of Meshketian Turks which Stalin had deported to Central Asia in 1944. The plan was very open to the public, calling for the Turks to be settled in Javakhk, the Armenian region of Georgia.

Georgia also rearranged its administrative borders after the Soviet collapse, merging Armenian majority Javakhk region with the Georgian-majority Samstskhe region to invent a new province called Samtskhe-Javaketi. The capital of that province was moved to Akhaltsikhe in Samtskhe, where Armenians are only 37% of the population, instead of the city of Akhalkalak, which is in Javakhk and is almost completely Armenian.

Georgia, a micro-empire ruling over various minorities, strongly discriminates against Armenian language and culture inside of Javakhk, despite all of the Anglo-American-Kike bullshit about Georgia being a shining light of democracy and human rights in one of the world's darkest, Russian-occupied regions.

Armenians in the capital of Georgia before the Soviet period constituted either a plurality if not outright majority. They have since dwindled in numbers. The Georgian Orthodox Church has confiscated many medieval Armenian churches which had been shut down during the Soviet period. In many cases they have destroyed Armenian inscriptions on churches and replaced them with new Georgian inscriptions. Georgian church and political leaders have also destroyed Armenian cemeteries and kachkars.

Saakashvili built his hideous presidential palace in Tblisi's Havlabar district, which was the old Armenian town. It was conveniently built over destroyed Armenian buildings, as well as over Armenian graves which were ripped out of the ground. Same story with Georgia's Sameba Cathedral, which was built between 1995 and 2004 as Georgia's shitty attempt to give their shitty church something comparable to Echmiadzin.

Finally, Georgia is saturated beyond salvation by western and kike interests. They are NATO's trojan horse in the region. Anti-Russian and anti-Armenian hatred flows throughout the Georgian body, it is a genetic and cultural disease which cannot be cured. It gives Georgians a predisposition to worshipping Turks, Jews, and westerners.

There is no other option. Armenia and Russia must dismantle Georgia permanently.

Incidentally, some of the diasporan Armenian cyber-warriors in Los Angeles and elsewhere in the west absolutely worship Georgia for its achievements in democracy. Our old friend, Glendale faggot Kevin Abrahamian is a prime example. Of course Kevin is just a barking dog (poodle) who will never actually influence the Armenian state in any way, but it offers yet more proof that the westernized diaspora is a danger to Armenia, and actually in bed with Armenia's enemies. But its not just the diaspora, Armenia's longest serving CIA agent, Paruhi Hayrikyan also sings the praises of Georgians (and Azeris and NATO!) in his delusional rants that focus on the KGB still being out to get him.

BTW, Georgians are faggots and cowards on the battle field. They have a tendency of abandoning their weapons and running away. We saw this in the failed War of Georgian Aggression against South Ossetia in 2008. The German's also tragically experienced Georgian treachery during World War 2:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_uprising_on_Texel

Don't let the western spin on Wikipedia fool you, Georgian soldiers attacked sleeping Germans. They are no better than Azeri axe murderer and national hero ramil safarov... Come to think about it, between their willingness to destroy Armenian churchs, gaves, buildings and monuments; their habit of murdering people who are asleep; and their habit of fleeing the battlefield in war they started, I really see no differences between Georgians and Azeris.

re: "There is no other option. Armenia and Russia must dismantle Georgia permanently."

So why did Russia accept such a lame settlement to the 2008 war? They could have taken more territory for Abkhazia and Ossetia, for starters. And why not demand autonomy for Javakh? I guess my question comes down to the old saying "If you are going to kick a dog, kick it good and hard." Leaving Georgia with Saakhashvili in charge and the NATO/Western interests more-or-less everywhere, just left an angry dog. Saakhashvili seems to be an energetic man, who can now work his magic near Odessa. And Russia is still left with the problem of poor access to Armenia.

So perhaps they "must" dismantle Georgia, but will they? For that matter, will Armenia help? I saw today that Russian troops were doing a very large drill with drones in Ossetia, so that might be a sign.

Eurasian, Sarkis is merely expressing a wish many Armenians have these days due to Georgia's hostility and Turcophilia.

With that said, there was no "lame settlement" back in 2008. Russia achieved its primary objective: The liberation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Politics, let lone war against a nation backed by major powers, is not a domestic dispute nor is it a street brawl. There are serious geopolitical and economic considerations and calculations behind every political move. In a nutshell: Moscow did not want to bite more than it could chew, especially back then when it had only recently begun making international waves. A Russian occupation of Georgia proper for instance may have been disastrous for Moscow, especially back then when it was considerably weaker than it is now. Even now, you see Moscow acting very cautiously in Eastern Ukraine.

The same applies to Western powers: Look at how cautious they have been against Iran and Syria. This all boils down to one thing: An overly ambitious step by a major power can lead to a world war. Nobody wants a world war. Dismantling anything - be it Georgia, be it Azerbaijan, bet it Turkey, be it Armenia - is a contingency plan major powers have but they reserve it for use only as a last resort.

Anyway, the rumor back in 2008 was that Putin had indeed asked official Yerevan to open up a front in Javakhq. Perhaps not knowing how easily the Georgian military was going to be defeated, Russians wanted Armenians to open a southern front to divert Georgian forces. According to the rumor: Yerevan categorically refused. Although I personally would have wanted to see an Armenian uprising in Javakhq, I nevertheless cant blame Yerevan for refusing to do so. Not knowing the ultimate objective of Moscow,Yerevan did not want to move against Georgia and risk losing its only lifeline to Russia and Europe. Such a move would have also risked seriously angering Western powers. I think a double blockade is bad enough. A triple blockade - as well as ruined/hostile relations with the West - may have ruined Armenia.

Ultimately, a southern front proved unnecessary because after the third/fourth day of the war the Georgian army had been totally defeated and Abkhazia and South Ossetia were safely in Russian hands. So, had Yerevan opened up a front in Javakhq, a whole new can of worms would have been unleashed and Armenia may very well have been in a very serious predicament today. We can of course speculate here that Russia would have, might have come to Armenia's aid... but all that, like I said, would be mere speculation.

Eurasian if you've noticed Russia under Putin never escalates until it is absolutely necessary. Georgia was radically anti-Russian from day one following the coup d'état which placed Saakashvili in power. There were minor clashes and diplomatic chest-pounding from the Georgian monkies for nearly five years before they crossed the line and Moscow responded, and even then like you said it was a rather limited operation.

We can only guess why the Russians calculated this way. I suppose Moscow did not want to give the old continental European powers (namely France, Germany, and to a lesser extent Italy) a reason to totally cut relations back then, just like Moscow does not want Europe to totally cut relations today despite the western assault on Ukraine. Even during the rape of Serbia in 1999 Moscow did not go out of its way to punish Europe. There are probably many reasons for this:

-Maybe Moscow felt that it was not yet economically, militarily, societally, or politically ready at the time to enter a new Cold War.

-European countries are physically closer to Russia and they share a long history of political maneuvering, not to mention a lot of trade. Occupying all of Georgia would have created much more severe hardships back then.

-Occupying Georgia would have breathed new life into NATO and united them behind a common anti-Russian position. I remember back during 2008 France and Germany were the leading NATO voices that opposed membership for Georgia, it was the usual degenerate faggots (US, Britain, Poland, the Baltics) that were loudly calling for the so-called GUUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova) to be annexed into NATO. And this was at a time when the US presence in former-Soviet Central Asian states was much stronger than it is now, before Putin's Russia kicked the US military out of bases like Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan... Also note that if NATO were solidly united in an anti-Russian alliance because of Georgia, Turkey's importance would skyrocket due to its geo-location.

-At the end of the day, Russia liberated Abkhazia and South Ossetia, neutered the homoerotic Georgian military, absolutely destroyed any hope that Georgia would enter NATO, created a rift between the slightly more sensible old Europe (France and Germany) and the total basket case queers in the Anglo-American bloc and their new Eastern European vassals. And Russia kindly left the job of paying to rebuild a tattered Georgia to the west. And Russia now had a sledgehammer it could use in negotiations with the west, namely the threat of finishing Saakashvili off and showing the west to be impotent once again for the whole world to see. The invasion as it was carried out accomplished everything that was necessary.

-Additionally, Moscow may have calculated that since Georgian society itself had been so infected by western agents, money, NGOs, and media that it had inherently become anti-Russian. So Moscow may have figured it would be best to leave the Saakashvili regime in power for another couple of years knowing that Georgian living standards would never evolve and eventually Georgians themselves would get tired of Saakashvili's nepotism and failure to solve the country's many acute problems. Besides, all Georgia was doing was getting itself into debt with western institutions which it would never be able to escape; and bankrupt debt slaves are much easier to control.

We're having a very similar discussion here that Russian nationalists have on "why didn't Putin just take over all of Novorossiya or Ukraine militarily", or that Armenians have about "why didn't we just conquer all of Azerbaijan militarily". Sure these are nice scenarios, but the reasons in real life have hundreds of factors to consider, and rational governments will often take an extremely conservative and risk-averse approach to these decisions. And honestly that is a much better option than gambling everything and risking total loss like our friend Saakashvili. Besides, patience is a virtue; sooner or later the divisions among western factions will become more severe, and Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbiajian and others will be brought back in line.

I agree with Arevordi. When I say Javakhq needs to be liberated, I mean in a strategic, long-term, well-planned goal. Armenia restrains its conduct with Azerbaijan, a country with which Armenia is engaged in a low-intensity war at the moment, so don't expect Yerevan to open any other fronts anytime soon. If a major war breaks out in the region, which I pray does not happen, only then the calculations can change.

Hypothetical: I'm just speculating here, but Armenia could probably defeat Georgia militarily without too many problems and liberate Javakhq if it wanted to do so in the immediate future. But like Arevordi said, the geopolitical repercussions at this point in time would be immense - enough to make this scenario completely unreal for the time being. The west and their Turkic allies would come down on Armenia with extreme intensity. The west and the Turks/Azeris would be infinitely more challenging than Georgia. The Dram (Armenian currency) would be attacked, the NGOs and propaganda rags would be activated, sanctions would be enacted, Turkey and Azerbaijan would be reinforces and encouraged by the west to harass Armenia (since they would consider this a liberated Javakhq a Russian victory as much as an Armenian victory), etc. Armenia's weak economy and extremely tight geopolitical situation would make this an existential threat to Armenia... I don't think that even Moscow would want to deal with such a hypothetical scenario right now when it has its hands full, because it could ultimately be dragged into a regional war.

The above may or may not be a slipper-slope, but it highlights the present danger in the region. And why it took something as extreme as Sasakashvili's 2008 invasion to trigger a sufficient Russian response. It's not for nothing that Moscow keeps telling Azerbaijan "whoever restarts a military conflict in Artsakh will be the losing party", and it helps explain why Armenia is so extremely restrained in responding to Azeri provocations, even when Azerbaijan launches nightly infiltration attempts or shoots down a helicopter. The above also helps highlight why nationalist nutjobs (well-intentioned or not) are among the greatest dangers for Armenia.

Anyway my original intent was to point out that Armenia would benefit with Javakhq because the region is almost all Armenian populated and it would help Armenia demographically. The region is in danger because west and Tblisi are interested in Turkifying Javakhq. And also I wanted to remind Armenians that while Hetq and Armenianow and the other western media are busy training young Armenians to worship Georgia, in reality Georgians are extremely hostile to Armenian people and culture.

ps Armenians should lobby extra hard to the Kremlin for significant numbers of advanced weapons like missiles, artillery, tanks, S-400s, etc. to make sure that Armenia can keep the Azeris and Turks at bay if the need arises for Armenia to open additional fronts in future conflicts.

Oh, I generally agree with what you wrote, and was exaggerating a bit due to the nature of the text in question. However, I wouldn't take the comparison with Novorossiya too far. Occupying half or all of the Ukraine would have been a disaster, so the only options were to try to lead a quick operation with people like Yanukovich for a a quick victory and a new election, one that Russia would not be happy with, or a more local operation, which is what they did. In the case of Georgia, however, Russia could have pulled out a week or two later after perhaps modifying the borders of Abkhazia or Ossetia, or even getting an agreement that Adjara and Javakh had autonomy of some sort. My bet is simply that the Kremlin and Russian elite circles were and are full of those who desperately want the "convergence" with Europe they have been seeking since the days of Andropov. I doubt they can ever get it. Russian elites don't seem to understand that they simply don't fit in with the Western paradigm. First of all, the Western model is to steal natural resources, usually with the use of a dictator, but someone like Yeltsin would suffice. Next, Russia simply can't stop important plans, such as with Syria and Iran. What kind of compromise is possible there? Finally, Russia keeps talking about equality, and Aslund even complained about it. There is no equality in the EU - they do what they are told. Russia cannot be any different.

In any case, Russia did achieve the main goals of the operation. No question. Perhaps my American mind always sees the logic in "never let a good crisis go to waste".

Where I may disagree with you is that I doubt the psychology will play out the way the Kremlin may hope, and I also doubt that economic problems in either the Ukraine or Georgia will really change the situation fast enough to work in Russia's favor. The US can and has kept rotten governments, such as Guatemala, in power for decades during civil wars and outright ethnic murder campaigns. Also, people who are suffering will search for scapegoats, and Russia is the best of them all. Russia could certainly carry out a destabilization campaign to bring down Kiev, but that is a different matter.

By the way, it is an open question as to whether Putin's approach of waiting till the last minute to escalate has worked properly. Russia has tolerated absurd abuses in the Baltic states and the Ukraine. The response was to turn the other cheek, all in the spirit of working with their European partners. To me, all of these cases of turning the other cheek illustrate weakness, a weakness that would help to convince typical Westerners of the logic of going to war with Russia in a non-nuclear way. Yes, a common home from Lisbon to Vladivostok would be a good idea, but first we should smash Russia to get the resources and abolish their nukes.

Eurasian

PS That is an interesting story about a possible Armenian front during the 2008 war. It might not be true, however, as has been pointed out here, Russia is fairly conservative, and would have had to deal with an Armenian-Georgian state of hostility after the immediate problem had been resolved.

Armenia should get its plans in place, because the Western Empire may want to cause trouble for Russia in as many places as possible at the same time, and Georgia seems more likely than Azerbaijan. The Aliyev clan and their allies have a lot to lose, and may not want to spend the rest of their days in Istanbul. Georgia, on the other hand, could be manipulated in a lot of ways that would force Russia's hands. A few bribes or threats might be all it would take. And, of course, one wonders how the key institutions such as the police or internal security stand. If they have American passports and have lived near DC, then it is a card that the US can play whenever they want.

Sarkis, about your point of Turkic and Western hostility if and when Armenia ever makes a move, well, Turkey is already pretty hostile, but what choice have you got? Armenia and Russia are both destined to have lots of friends when they are weak and desperate, and not so many when they are healthy and prosperous. And, doesn't the proposed gas pipeline go through Javakh? That would mean the West would have to pretend to stay friends. But this all begs a further question. If Armenia were to take Javakh, would that be enough? Don't you need access to the sea or to Russia?

This article comes merely days after the same author wrote another article titled "The US Is Trying to Pry Armenia out of Russia's Orbit". I personally think Korybko is intentionally fearmongering because he can't be so gullible as to think that Armenia's ties to Russia is that vulnerable. So, what's his ulterior motive? I don't know, but his bio is interesting: "Andrew [Korybko] is a political analyst who writes extensively on Russian international relations. He is a specialist on Middle Eastern politics, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe. He is a frequent commentator on TV and radio. Originally from Cleveland, Ohio, he is currently completing graduate studies in international relations at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO)".

I also felt that his article was not accurate, he blamed Sargsyan for the trip to USA. That trip had no hidden agenda. Sargsyan was there for AG events. And just because McCain came over and took a picture while he was in Congress doesn't mean at all that Sargsyan doesn't realize who McCain is.

My opinion is Armenia will NEVER EVER even think about leaving Russia's orbit it's impossible.

It's just not possible no matter who writes what. I don't know much about Belarus but if Armenia left Russia we would not exist. You don't need to be a brain surgeon to work it out that Russia runs the South and will continue doing this.

Honestly i would say Russia would go to WW3 for Armenia over any of it's other ally countries Armenia is very important for Moscow and vis versa.

The Saker at The Vineyard of the Saker is fairly well-known in Anti-Anglo-Zionist Empire matters, and is looking for someone to write a weekly update on things in the Caucasus. If anyone is interested, look at:

Thanks for the offer but I simply don't have the time for it. I periodically monitor his site for relevant information about the war in Ukraine. I like much of what he has to say. But I have also noticed that he is somewhat indifferent towards Armenian matters. Even in his "wish list" he is more interested in Chechnya. Moreover, I am not totally enamored by him because I sense something fishy. In other words, I don't think he is operating on his own. He could be a Russian sponsored operation, he could be a Western sponsored operation. I have no way of knowing. In any case, I tend to stay clear of people who I don't think are independent operators - regardless of their politics.

Can anyone explain what has happened on the ground in turkey? With the loss of seats for Erdogan, Armenians are hoping that things are about to change. Whereas I'm doubtful that anything could happen in our favor, even if Kurds gain more power. But I would like to hear the regular commenter's opinions on this matter

Also, an interesting interview:

The US, Russia may be closer together politically than many people think

I have a funny feeling azerbaijan will try something after the fake baku games. I have a few family members serving in armenian army currently from what i been told we do have Iskander-M in our control & 102 base has it's own.

Svediatsi, Erdogan essentially lost the carte blanche he has had in Ankara since he has been in power. But that does not mean anything of real political substance will change in Ankara with regards to Turkish-Armenian relations. If Armenians think Turkey is changing for the better, it simply means that after all these years Armenians are still being stupid about Turks. In my opinion, people like Erdogan is what we Armenians should want to see in power in Ankara because ultimately, like Arto suggested, what we want is a Turkey run by extremists or a Turkey that is politically unstable.

I forgot to make myself clear. Though you touched on that subject at the end in your reply. Don't you think that this whole Erdogan's loss of power is sort of a punishment to him by the West for trying to build closer ties to Russia?

As we know, Russian-Turkish cooperation has increased since the sanctions, be it food exports or the new Turkish-Stream pipeline plan.

Although I doubt that it would happen, don't the results of the elections signal that Turkey can easily be destabilized by the west if they really want it to, as a last resort?

Svediatsi, there is no doubt that Western powers have been looking to punish Erdogan for his real and perceived political independence for a long time now. There is also no doubt that Western powers are using young/left-wing/liberal/progressive Turks to do their dirty work against him, similar to what they do against targeted nations around the world. But I highly doubt that Western powers are trying to actually destabilize Turkey as a nation. Can they do so? Theoretically, yes. Will they? No, at least not for the foreseeable future. Therefore, what's happening in Turkey may very well be encouraged/orchestrated by Western powers as a punishment against Erdogan, but it has nothing to do with Turkey per se. Once more: Their problem is Erdogan's increasingly belligerent administration, not NATO member Turkey.

Much ado about nothing. Erdogans party won the election. The other small parties that got elected will not affect Turkish politics. There is much glee in the fact that three Armenians got elected into parliament. Armenians in turkey ( personal impression based on experience in having dealt with many of them) are thoroughly turkified. They may have the Ian in their names, but any familiarity stops there. Therefore the election of these Turks with Ian names means little for Armenia. Some of them have even changed their names. Watch some of the sporting matches between Armenian Turks and others in national games and you find that there has been a brawl or animosity in those matches. Notorious was the basket match in 2011 where a row erupted, blows exchanged and the USA hyer hurled invectives to "you are Turks". The big question regarding Erdogan is that he's riled the Jewish masters, but the Jews have not responded in kind. Other heads of state have lost their jobs for similar behavior.

The west will not give up on trying to create a rift between natural allies Armenia and Russia. Look at this psych-op conducted by the western-own NGO "civilitas", and then re-reported by western-owned "eurasianet.org".

The poll was conducted by the Armenian NGO Civilitas Foundation with support from the German and Norwegian governments. I'm sure the numbers were exaggerated. Also, I'm sure the way the questions were posed to the audience was loaded, because I doubt only 38% of the audience would say Armenia needs assistance against Turkey.

Here's an idea: a more reliable source like Sputnik Armenia or Novosti Armenii conduct a poll and ask relevant questions like these below:

-"Armenians, how do you feel about the fact that when a Turkish F-4 Phantom II was shot down in Syria back in June 2012, America and European NATO members rushed to Turkey and reinforced their military on the Syrian border with advanced weapons"

-"Armenians, would you accept sexual perversions like homosexuality and transsexuals as the west does, including a 100% positive portrayal in all the media of news and entertainment, including specifically targeting young children with the idea that such perversions are not only normal but actually desirable?"

-"Armenians, do you agree that Armenia is not diverse enough (97% ethnic Armenian, over 90% Armenian Apostolic Christian), and desperately needs "vibrancy" like the west enjoys that could only come from massive immigration from Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and even Central America of people who are biologically and culturally incompatible with Armenians?

It's typical Western style psy-ops. The author is either an idiot or he is simply assuming his readers are stupid when he raises the question about: how could Armenians want to ensure Armenia's security themselves at the same time have no problems with hosting a Russian base? I'm no genius but could it be that Armenians naturally want to protect their homeland themselves but realizing the limits of their capabilities want assistance from their Russian ally? There are no "mixed views" here but there is no doubt that the survey was manipulated.

PS: If he wants to see "mixed views" and down-right hostility to a foreign military presence, the asshole who wrote this piece should instead review similar surveys conducted in dozens of nations around the world that host multiple American military bases. He can start in Japan and Korea - Marines Go Home: Anti-Base Activism in Okinawa, Japan and Korea: http://japanfocus.org/-Kageyama-Asako/3335/article.html

Civil as and Eurasian org , their questioning of Armenia is not diverse needs a strong refutal and riposte such as they have never heard of before. we do not need vibrancy through the degenerate, dystopic and dysgenic immigration . Immigration no longer exists in the XXi century. The word immigration is a euphemism for invasion. This is the unavoidable consequences of the dysgenic destruction of the biological genus of the Europid. Racial obliteration, Armenian is born Armenian, is not manufactured. For centuries we resisted turkification and succeeded. They must not come now with grandiose schemes of diversification and afroasianization of the motherland. The challenge to preserve our identity and culture and prevent genetic pollution is of Herculean proportions. They, the enemy, can siphon off millions of "refugees" and invaders into any targeted area almost at will. The grand kabbalistic program is population replacement and bastardization of the Euripid. Anon

@Arevordi, Thanks for the article. The following sentence near the end of the article summed things up pretty nicely:

Furthermore, Misawa is currently being used as a forward staging area for bombing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.14 These developments illustrate that US forces are not in Japan for the protection of Japan or peace and stability in Asia, but for the projection of American power throughout Asia and the Pacific, even to the Middle East.

@Anonymous:

I made the questions up to demonstrate areas in critical areas regarding national security and self-preservation in which Armenia, with its weak economy, barbaric neighbors, and still immature socio-political systems is way ahead of the west. However, these is absolutely no basis for wasting time and energy arguing about immigration in Armenia simply because it will never happen. If you want to take a constructive approach to preventing the danger of demographic-shifting immigration affecting Armenia, take your rage and unleash it on all of Armenia's pro-west activists, because the only entity pushing that globalist agenda inside Armenia is the west. Your past comments on this topic, such as the claim that Armenia's weak economy is somehow a "good thing" because it discourages immigration, have been self-destructive and motivated by fear and a lack of understanding and depth regarding Armenia. Armenians do not suffer from the effects of 70+ years of Anglo-American-Jewish propaganda, and therefore are still able to understand nuanced concepts such as the genetic/biological differences between races and sexes.

The "Euripids" can do whatever the hell they want. Armenia will not miss them; Turkey and Israel's artificial existence as regional powers and even as states, however, would quickly come to an end of the "Euripids" were no longer around to prop them up.

Evangelicals Open Door to Debate on Gay Rightshttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/us/some-evangelicals-take-new-look-at-bibles-stance-on-gays.html?_r=0

More evidence that Armenia made the right civilizational choice in allying with Russia. And more evidence that the west is now rotten at its core. Every evangelical I have ever met has looked down on Armenian culture and the Armenian Apostolic Church as "not being true Christians or not being true to the Word of God", being over-pagan influenced, being overly ceremonial/ritualistic, etc. I have no problems seeing evangelical "Chrsitianity" taken the path towards self-destruction. I won't miss them, but the Jews and Turks will definitely miss them because evangelicals are the best allies Jews and Turks have.

Incidentally, here are the ukrs getting some of that hard-earned freedom:

Ukraine's president voices LGBT support in a first for the countryhttp://mashable.com/2015/06/05/ukraines-poroshenko-supports-pride-parade-in-kiev/

Yet another interesting article appearing in Russia Direct. The analyst is a Turk who seems to long for closer relations with Russia:

"Regarding the repercussions of the latest elections on Turkish-Russian relations, the results will affect ongoing relations negatively since the pro-Kurdish party, with its strong support from the West, could destabilize the country and this, in turn, could harm the economic interests of Russia in Turkey.

One should also observe that Erdoğan, who has started to move closer to Moscow in recent months and is a personal friend of Russian President Vladimir Putin, is losing power in Turkey. Moreover, all other opposition parties and some groups within AKP that are hostile to Erdoğan, are also cautious about relations with Russia.

Most importantly, with the entrance of HDP to the Parliament with 80 deputies out of 550, a one-party and stable government is not possible in the long run. The coalitions will be politically more fragile against foreign pressures in this new Turkish balance of power. Therefore, a coalition government is unlikely to take strategic decisions easily for projects like the Turkish Stream pipeline."

(Geopolitically wise, the following part is interesting to consider)

"The only winner of the elections is the pro-Kurdish HDP, which doubled its share of the votes from 6.5 percent to over 13 percent. Besides its classical secular vote base in eastern parts of the country, HDP won the overwhelming support of religious Kurds, who were voting for AKP before. Now, from the Turkish-Georgian boundary to the Turkish-Syrian border, the HDP is the dominant power. Moreover, it also increased its votes in the western part of the country."

There's always a chance Aliyev will order an increase in the number and intensity of the subversive attacks Azerbaijan carries out on the frontlines against Armenia and Artsakh. It helps keep Azeris focused on an external enemy, rather than the fact that Aliyev and co. have largely robbed Azerbaijan of the billions of dollars in oil wealth that was promised over the past two decades. If Aliyev orders more raids against Armenia, he will fail to accomplish anything; in fact the Azeri casualties will just mount up and Baku will have a hard time hiding their losses, because you can't really expect people to believe that 100 Azeri soldiers died in car accidents, drownings, and rare infectious diseases during the same period where Aliyev is claiming that Azerbaijan scored a massive victory against an Armenian raiding party while suffering zero Azeri casualties. In fact, Armenian military officials have in recent months promised to launch more punitive retaliatory attacks against Azerbaijan, to cause them ten deaths for every Armenian soldier which is killed.

All of that being said, it has been a topic of discussion since at least 2007 that when Azerbaijan's economic oil boom passes its peak, and they start running out of money and protests start all over the country, it will be the most dangerous period in the region. We are now entering that period because oil prices have dropped, oil production in Azerbaijan has been dropping for years, and Baku squandered most of its wealth. They have a bunch of ugly office buildings in the center of Baku and other large cities, and they now assemble shitty Israeli-designed drones and South African MRAPs, but most by and large most Azeris haven't seen their share of the billions, and Azerbaijan's economy and exports are still very, very strongly based on the energy industry. So at the very least we can expect tensions to rise sharply in Azerbaijan in the immediate future. Azeri security forces will have to start cracking down on larger and larger numbers of dissidents.

But to address the article directly: I doubt anything too major will happen when the Olympic games in Baku end. Also note that I don't think anyone wants to deal with another war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, not Russia with its hands full in Syria and Ukraine, and probably not the US either between American investments in Azeri pipelines pumping oil and gas to the EU and also the very real threat of Russia, Iran, Turkey/NATO, and Georgia getting involved if a conflict breaks out of control.

Anyway Armenia and Artsakh need to be militarily prepared, and I am confidant that our leaders are doing everything necessary.

The Azeries have shut down the offices of the OSCE. Is the West losing its leverage in Azeriland ? There is speculation that Russia want to integrate Azeriland into the EEUU. They can do that, but they better understand that the Karabakh question is no longer an issue. Azeries will never ever return to Artsaj. The connundrum gets intersting. The West ( USA-EU-Israel) will not take it graciously to any lessening t of their influence and " control" in Azerbaijan. If alyev tilts toward Russia, the West will look to become more enmeshed in Armenia. . It is quite sinister in a way that it has been a week ? that we have not had any news of Azeries incursions into Artsaj . Piper

The time to seriously address the festering conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan may be nearing because with the creation of the Eurasian Economic Union and with the on-going crisis in Ukraine, Moscow may be ready to seriously seek the settlement of one of the region's most serious hotspots. Although the status quo is something Moscow can certainly live with, solving the problem may now better serve Russia's longer term interests in the region. Therefore, Russia and the West are both vying for influence over the settlement process. They both want to impact its outcome. When the West was on the verge of a major breakthrough, the October 27 assassinations took place and the matter was put back on the shelf. Today, a resurgent Russia stands poised to broker a final settlement and the West does not like it. They may therefore try to sabotage it if a settlement becomes imminent. Nevertheless, here is an interesting Western article on the matter -

America Must Stop Ignoring the South Caucasus: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/america-must-stop-ignoring-the-south-caucuses-13093

I couldn't agree more Arto. I'm glad to see the Russians being more proactive, and I am especially glad to see the Russian military working on its public image after the Permyakov tragedy.

Ustinov said Russians and Armenians have plenty in common – they together won the victory in the Great Patriotic War (World War II).

These truths need to be emphasized over and over again. Many young Armenians, at least in the diaspora, do not understand the proper historical context in which to view World War II. Either they are outright Nazi sympathizers who lump all the Allies (including the hundreds of thousands of Soviet Armenians who served and sacrificed their lives) as Jew/Bolshevik/Communists, or otherwise they fall for the US propaganda that Britain bravely held out against Germany until the invasion of Normandy, and then the Anglo-Americans did the heavy lifting and defeated Germany largely on their own. Armenian heroes from World War II need to be emphasized as greatly building on the foundations which were laid at Sardarapat, Vanadzor, and Abaran in 1918, and ultimately laid the framework for the victorious liberation campaign in Artsakh in 1988-1994.

Why Are the Caucasus Hosting So Many Joint Military Exercises?http://www.silkroadreporters.com/2015/06/09/why-are-the-caucasus-hosting-so-many-joint-military-exercises/

I don't have to make any appeals to emotion, I don't even have to highlight past, unresolved grievances Armenia has against Georgia. The facts simply speak for themselves: There exist two, mutually-exclusive camps in the world; Georgia falls in one of those camps, and it is shared with Azerbaijan, Turkey, Israel, the EU, NATO, the USA, and the rest of the Anglosphere; Armenia falls into the opposing camp, and that camp includes Russia and a few other allies (with some seats reserved for natural members such as Cyprus and Serbia).

YEREVAN. - If the Russian deputy believes that Karabakh should bereturned to Azerbaijan, let him come and take it, secretary of ARFDashnaktsutyun party Aghvan Vardanyan said coming on the remark byRussian MP Dmitry Savelyev.

According to Azerbaijani media, Savelyev said that seven regionsof Nagorno-Karabakh have to be handed over to Azerbaijan. No suchstatement was published by Russian media or on the personal websiteof the MP.

"The meaning of these words for us is zero, just as the position ofSavelyev," Vardanyan emphasized.

Foremost, we should not get into the habit of quoting Azeri/Turkish press sources because we know they are notorious for making things up. With that said, we also know that there are Russians tasked with giving lip service to Azeris and Turks. It's their version of complimentary politics. What such individuals say about Artsakh should be taken with a grain of salt because we know that official Moscow wants Artsakh to remain in Armenian hands, we also know that the last thing Russia wants is to strengthen Turks and Muslims in the South Caucasus. If you want to know what's Moscow's position regarding Artskah, look at the situation on the ground. The situation on the ground strongly favors Armenians. Nevertheless, I was very pleased with the way Aghvan Vardanyan reacted to Azeri press release. He was wise/mature enough not to attack Russia or Moscow, he simply signaled out the individual for criticism. With that said, it is most probable that Savelyev's comments were misrepresented by Azeris.

Saakashvili has been appointed governor of Odessa. Besides the embarrassment of having a non-Ukrainian citizen appointed as governor, besides the silliness of a wanted criminal being appointed as governor (I guess it suits the Kiev junta), besides the retardedness of having a fat, tie-eating, warmonger who already got his ass handed to him by Russia barely seven years ago being appointed as governor in a regime determined to go to war with Russia, besides the irony of having a South Caucasian (with probable Jewish admixture) serving as governor in "nationalist-led free Ukraine", I have to wonder. Odessa has a very large number of ethnic Russians, in Odessa city 78% of the population speak Russian at home compared to 6% who speak Ukrainian at home, and 15% who speak both languages. What are the odds that Saakashvili will be killed sometime soon, either by Odessian patriots or as a sacrifice by his western puppet masters looking for a pretext to escalate the situation?

Russian speaking does not necessarily mean ethnic Russians. I don't know what the numbers are today but during Soviet times a majority of Odessa's population was of Jewish ancestry. I would guess even today the city has a significant Jewish presence.

Odessa is a criminal city, just like Chicago was. Number of multiethnic clans control all commerce, jews traditionally had a bigger say. Saakashvili will have to share money with all of them to survive. I think americans are tired of him, why not send him there to get rid of him. It's a perfect setup to blame Russians.

Anyway, I'm sure Odessa's quarter-million or so Russians are divided into various political factions but even then, I would assume at least some percentage of Russians have retained their sense of self-preservation, and can comprehend that the Kiev junta, the ukr nationalist nutjobs, the jewish oligarchy in Ukraine, and other western agents (specially saakashvili) would like nothing more than to inflict genocide on Russians. Under such circumstances, saakashvili must feel like he is a target every time he steps out in public, regardless of how many security guards he has around him. I'm not saying that anything will definitely happen, but the risk seem higher than average.

I wouldn't trust Wikipedia on anything that matters to the Anglo-Zionist Empire. I read that a Russian equivalent is being created, which is long overdue. Anyway, you can take to the bank that they will consider someone who is half Ukrainian and half Russian as a Ukrainian, and probably the same for others, and this is a very mixed city. Kind of the Los Angleles of the Russian world.

A crash-course in geopolitics: Very lucid, sober minded, easy to understand presentation by Starlikov of the overall geostrategic situation Moscow faces in Ukraine today. What he describes is still essentially part of Moscow's plan to "Karabakhize" the region. As I have said, although south-eastern Ukraine will not ever be going back under Kiev's direct control, the region will not be annexed by Russia either. For various geostrategic reasons, the territory will remain a semi-independent "buffer" region backed by Russia for well into the future. The region's annexation to Russia will only occur when their is a drastic change in the geopolitical calculus or when things get out of control.

With that said, I don't buy the supposition that Western powers intended to prepare Kiev for an actual war against Russia. I think that's simply a scare tactic being put out by Moscow. In my opinion, Western powers made their move in Kiev for two strategic reasons: Undermine Moscow's ambitious Eurasian Union project (because it had the potential of becoming a serious economic/financial competition) and sour Moscow's increasingly good relations with EU nations (because it had the potential of weakening Western influence inside continental Europe). What was the West's ultimate intent? To undermine Russia's growing power and influence in the world, specifically in Europe. Going forward: Moscow must do its best to keep good relations with important European powers (i.e Germany and France primarily), make sure the 2/3 million people currently under separatist control in Novorossiya are well fed and well protected; put steady military pressure on surrounding regions' still under Kiev's control; turn Crimea into a major, nuclear armed military base.

There is another goal USA is achieving by keeping the war going in Ukraine. The western (pro-west) and Eastern (pro-Russian) population of Ukraine is about 25% each. the other 50% is mixed in between people who call themselves Ukrainian. Continued war and war propaganda is aimed to make these 50% anti-Russian. Killed soldiers, lost families is a powerful tool they use to make hardcore enemies to Russia. They are basically propping a new society on Russian border that is ready to fight with Russia and do anything the masters will tell them to do.

I agree that it is a good presentation, but think the discussion/debate needs to be much more involved. For example, how long can one keep three million people in a state where normal life and business cannot take place? Abkhazia can function as a little tourist town for Russia, but it has a small population and no war. Also, the morale costs are high. The locals already feel used/abused by Moscow, so there is a limit. I doubt that many in Artsakh feel that Armenia set them up and betrayed them. In the case of say, Pakistan, it didn't stay in India, so it could develop. And, after all, Russia didn't keep Abkhazia and South Ossetia inside Georgia for leverage. That was done for a long time, but ...

Arevordi,

I agree that the West doesn't actually intend to send Kiev against Russia directly; it would be too easy for Russia to then have a free hand. But it does add a real zone of tension to preoccupy Russia for the coming build-up. The West may have wanted to install a militarist in Azerbaijan, or created some turmoil in Georgia, or set up any number of angles in the Anaconda strategy. The problem with Kiev is that, unlike Saakhashvili's Georgia, the number of provocations is practically limitless. The countries were fairly intertwined.

It is unfortunate - yet inevitable - that Novorossiyans would have become pawns in the current power struggle between Moscow and Western powers. Armenians of Artsakh have also become pawns in a similar struggle. It is also natural that resentment and anger will develop as a result of the current situation. Moscow has to therefore do what it can to direct negative sentiments in the region towards the Western backed junta in Kiev and not itself. Soft power and propaganda (public relations) is very important in this equation. From what I can see, Moscow realizes all this and has been utilizing soft power and propaganda in the region it quite efficiently.

And on this point, I disagree with you and think Moscow is failing to a significant degree on the propaganda and morale front. It would be OK if major cities weren't being shelled daily, and perhaps Moscow was thinking that it wouldn't be this bad. Hard to say. But the propaganda war is at risk. As an example, the most popular blogger regarding the war, Colonel Cassad, posted something that has been all over the Russian blogosphere. It takes today's statements by various Russian or Novorossiyan authorities and puts them in the mouths of WWII figures. When you add the silent or contradictory approach regarding basic questions, such as "Do you want Kiev to fall quickly?", it leads to problems. In Cassad's view, the Kremlin is now getting to the stage where it is laughed at, which is what happened in the late Soviet period.

In my limited range of vision, a fairly large number of people in the Russian blogosphere are mocking or laughing at a lot of the articles and posts by pro-Kremlin authors these days. These are not the usual professionals from the past, and they are not screaming that Russia must invade immediately. They simply have lost confidence in the authorities, just as was the case in, say, the late 1970's. Of course, there is a huge difference now, because the doubts are only over the Ukraine; back then, the doubts were over everything.

You may disagree, and you might be right. But I sense a major change now as compared to six months ago.

12 Reasons Why US Does Not Want to Win Wars It Instigates Worldwidehttp://sputniknews.com/us/20150614/1023355636.html

What I find most interesting is that even though the facts described in this article - that war as it is performed by the west is a racket - there is no shortage of dumbass Americans enlisting. It is really quite baffling because it is not a secret that America's government despises its own people and constantly works to disenfranchise them, and it is not a secret that the enemies America fights pose zero threat to America (unlike, say, massive invasions by third world criminals and gangs from the South, media-enticed chimp-outs, Jewish financial scheming, Israeli espionage, the American domestic espionage program, pharmaceuticals and GMOs, the world's largest and privately-operated prison system, or one of the world's most militarized and violent/murderous police forces).

I have touched upon this topic before: The strategic thinking in the imperial homeland is ultimately this: The more places they ruin on earth, the better they will be at home. It's part of their "order through chaos" approach. Example: When the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia fell into utter disarray, where did most of Russia's most wealthy people hide their money? In Western banks. Where did most Soviet scientists, doctors and skilled laborers go to after the collapse? To the West. Who took control over Iraq's and Libya's national wealth and oil industry? Western powers. By turning Syria into a bloodbath, they have weakened Syria, Hezbollah, Iraq and Iran. By plunging Ukraine into a civil war, they have undermined Russia's growing influence in Europe. So, as you can see, they don't have to win anything. They only have to break things. As I have said: As long as the imperial homeland is not suffering dire repercussions as a result of its actions around the world, they will continue sowing death and destruction around the world.

EEU is already doing a lot of good for Armenia even with the the regions problems and it will only get better with time: Armenia’s accession to Eurasian Economic Union gives big opportunities to country for exporting agricultural products - See more at: http://arka.am/en/news/business/armenia_s_accession_to_eurasian_economic_union_gives_big_opportunities_to_country_for_exporting_agri/#sthash.s3ySgBuR.dpuf

This goes into some detail about how NGOs work to cause trouble. It is by that guy Korybko, who seems to write a bit of superficial stuff about Armenia, though I suspect it is simply him trying to suck up to whatever groups he is working for or trying to impress. He is studying in Moscow. Anyway, there is a desire to find NGO whistleblowers. For what it is worth, my take is he is on or trying to be on the Russian payroll, not that he is a Langley type.

Your description of him may be the most accurate yet. I also don't think he is a Langley type. Most probably, he is a pro-Russian American (of Slavic ancestry?) trying to kiss up to Russians in hopes of landing a nice job in his field of interest...

That is pretty frightening. That seems like something that should have existed in the 1990s in Russia when the country was on its knees and military discipline and oversight was lacking. And it's not just the fact that something as critical as nuclear weapons are treated so carelessly that is shocking, but the fact that the military has pretty much an unlimited budget to oversee these programs - this is the type of corruption and inefficiency would lead to protests in other countries if the controlled media reported it.

Separately, I grudgingly admit that, despite his liberalism and general partnership with Jews, John Oliver is more often than not actually funny, and his social and political humor is usually grounded in fact (before it inevitably shifts to a pro-Black, anti-White tirade or otherwise reduces serious matters to a joke). His 2008 stan- up comedy special made me laugh, especially the line, "isn't it something that you can walk into the Fox News office, punch the first person you come across, and know that deep down inside they probably deserved it." Lots of good Bush jokes as well.

John Oliver: Terrifying Times Full Showhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BH6GcYW4so

Sweden Beefs Up Military Hardware Over Alleged Russian 'Aggression'http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150616/1023407576.html

Who would have thought in 1991 that within 24 years the recently independent Republic of Armenia would have surpassed Sweden? If Hitler was around today, there is no way he would self-identify as Nordic.

What can we make of the recent murder of a Russian soldier from gyumri's 102 base? It was done by another Russian soldier........I think C.I.A is at work in Armenia and trying it's hardest to do something.

confident that the west would provide security guarantees, yeah, sure, I feel really secure already...

NEWSPAPER: IF BAKU BECOMES MOSCOW'S SATELLITE, IT WILL RECEIVE KARABAKH

07:55, 16.06.2015Region:Armenia, Karabakh, AzerbaijanTheme: Politics

YEREVAN. - "I do not think that the Baku-Moscow rapprochement can havea dynamic impact on the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process, except forone development. If Baku wishes to become a satellite of Moscow--Ifind it hard to imagine--, but Moscow would like to serve Yerevanand hand the occupied territories to Azerbaijan on a platter."

Prominent American analyst Paul Goble told the aforesaid to 168 Zhamdaily of Armenia.

"He expressed a conviction that Armenia and Azerbaijan can reacha settlement if the foreign forces, like Moscow, do not causeuneasiness. According to him, a settlement can be achieved also in thecase when Armenia comes out of the RF's [i.e. the Russian Federation]influence.

'"I am confident that the West would provide security guaranteesfor Armenia, if Yerevan wished to return the occupied territories ofAzerbaijan and stopped playing the role of being Moscow's agent inthe Caucasus. (...) But it is not clear whether there are people inYerevan and in the West who are willing and able to carry out sucha deal,' said Paul Goble," reported 168 Zham daily.

Goble should the very least be declared persona non grata in Armenia. So should other American diplomats employed by Baku, especially Daniel Fried and Matthew Bryza... And LTP era traitors who were complicit in trying to pass the infamous Goble plan on Armenia should be tried for treason, it's better late than never.

He sounds EXACTLY like Armenia's political opposition freaks. Incidentally, this is the same Goble that wanted to give Armenia's border region with Iran to the Turks. Had it not been for the parliamentary assassinations of 1999, the "Goble Plan" may have become reality and Armenia today would have either disappeared from the map once again, or simply been reduced to a desolate/endangered speck on the map.

Please elaborate. Vazgen Sargsyan was a hardliner. He was against any concessions. He was the one who had Levon step down when he was willing to go to concessions. I'm not sure how getting a hardliner taken out of the picture would help in the implementation of the "Goble Plan." Moreover, he was pro-Russian, with close ties to the Kremlin. Isn't it possible getting this hardliner strongman out of the picture would benefit the west who publicly pushed for a "compromised solution."? This also occurred at the time of the second Chechen war, when Russia was really preoccupied. Is it possible it was an internal job? perhaps, we can rationalize that serge/Robert didn't want to share powers, and didn't want to answer to vazgen. Certainly possible. But let's also not forget Vazgen brough Robert and Serge on board, publicly praised them, and condemned the Karabakhci-Hayastanci distinction. I guess we'll never really know the truth, all we can do is speculate...

Paul Goble and his coterie of pompous catamites are nothing but poitical speculators , storm stirrers, and mendacious political dream merchants. These people do nothing else than write and pass banal ,vacuous , commentaries on any subject their radars zoom in. Gobble is a filthy Jew, and is sponsored by his tribe' s manifold institutions. Very few analysts seem to realize that there is no longer a Karabkh issue. Short of Azeries launching an armed invasion, there can be no claim to a land where there are no inhabitants ( in significant numbers) of a minority. There is nothing to discuss on karabakh other than legitimizing the the holding terrain . The myth of Azeries refugees has to be discredited . Their numbers increase exponentially as time passes on.From Russia Transcaucasian geopolitics karabakh is a key element in their grand strategy. There will never be a political accommodation or agreement with current demographic configurations. If azeries really want to capture karabakh it is to serve the objective goal of linking up with turkey and eliminating any remaining Russian influence in the area. It will not serve Iranian interests either that the two Turkish states should coalesce into anAnschluss . It will threaten Iran's northern lands and their territorial integrity. If the land of karabakh had a significant number of Turks azeries ( albeit a minority)in her confines then the political landscape would be different. A minority of Azries in karabakh would constitute a veritable danger and would also serve as a justification for an armed invasion by Azeries to come to the aid of their brethren. The best securities guarantees for Armenia is to be armed to the teeth. A modern day Sparta like nation is , in the contemporary world, the adequate and optimal security guarantee. Armenian should forget about economic material development and evolution a la West . Such a condition is at most a Utopian dream, a more realistic stasis is the realization that to survive a total militaristic view is number one priority to continue the struggle of survival. Uriah

Vazgen was a patriot... but he was also a ignorant choban who had no understanding of geopolitics. I suggest you get away from the notion that just because someone is a patriot, he or she knows what they are doing in politics. I don't know how old you are but I was watching political events very closely back then and I can tell you beyond any doubt that official Yerevan was slowly warming to the idea presented by the "Goble Plan". The parliamentary assassinations put an abrupt end to it. And no, Vazgen was not a pro-Russian anything. So wasn't Karen Demirjian. Demirjian had no allegiances: He was purely a businessman/bureaucrat only interested in pursuing money. Vazgen Sargsyan was a pro-Armenian patriot - but with no real education, no political training and no experience. Western powers placed a lot of effort on luring them (as well as Robert Kocharyan) into the Western orbit back then. They both were made to believe at the time that the Western plan to gift Artsakh to Armenia at the cost of "internationalizing" Armenia's border with Iran was the best way to go forward. Armenia was even being promised billions of dollars by Washington if Yerevan only went along with the plan. According to all reports (as well as rumors on the street) back then, Vazgen and Karen were believing the hype. But apparently Kocharyan was not. On the morning of the assassinations, Stobe Talbot, a high ranking State Department official and an associate of Paul Goble, was in Yerevan said to be going over the Meghri deal with Vazgen. The meeting was reported to be productive. A short while after Talbot departed Armenia, the killings took place. Thereafter, the Goble Plan was never again discussed.

Anyway, go to the following blog commentary and read the Wall Street Journal article lamenting Vazgen's and Karen's deaths and then read the Russian ambassador's letter essentially urging Armenians to forget about the Goble Plan

Some Thoughts on the October 27 Killings in Armenia (October, 2010): http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2010/11/eleven-years-ago-today-gunmen-burst.html

I got the following news from a reliable source in Armenia today: In an effort to help Armenians better protect their young border guards from Azeri/Turkish sharpshooters, Russia has begun supplying Armenia's military with thermal vision night sights. The devices are currently being installed on Armenia's border with Azerbaijan as well as on ARTSAKH'S BORDER WITH AZERBAIJAN.

Will Baku attempt to take Artsakh by force once the international sports games they are hosting ends? No one knows for sure, but Armenia is not taking any chances. Armenia's rhetoric regarding Artsakh has hardened in recent weeks. The entire border with Azerbaijan is being reenforced. Yerevan is even signaling that the Western-backed "Madrid principals" are no longer valid and that not a single square meter of land will be returned. And just recently, official Yerevan openly appointed Artsakh's new defense minister and Artsakh's former defense minister was given a position in Yerevan. These are all signs that Armenia is preparing for something -

Army future commander: I will be in Karabakh Wednesday morning: http://news.am/eng/news/272009.html

Is Aliyev actually crazy enough to try a serious attack on Artsakh? Is there any chance that Russia or Armenia actually wants to take some aggressive action and make it unclear as to what is going on? One assumes not, but is there some advantage to Russia is seeing Aliyev disgraced? After all, geopolitics is an ugly and brutal game.

One other question: If Azerbaijan attacked in a serious way and failed, is there any chance that Artsakh/Armenia could move on the offensive and occupy some area or otherwise cause some serious problem for Azerbaijan?

Lastly, have Armenian border guards been shot? Is this a current problem, or preparation?

You are making statements of fact, when in reality you have no way of knowing for certain.

I don't recall mentioning anything about Vazgen's political capabilities. But since your bring that up, then I would say that people who serve in the army, and especially during war, are much more likely to hold the nation's interest at heart during political leadership. As regard to Vazgen being a "choban," that is your personal opinion not having anything to do with reality. Vazgen was a charismatic, strong leader who projected grace and passion, who actually knew how to talk; he could be at the level of ordinary people, and he could sit down with the world leaders. I'm sorry to say, I don't see anyone in Armenia even remotely comparable--not serj, not galust sahakyan, not Edward sharmazanov, and certainly not Robert Kocharyan who was horrible at speaking. I'm not sure how old you are, but the way you express yourself seems like you've got a lot of bitterness and resentment inside of you. In any manner, that's not the way we address our heros whether you liked them or their ideas or not. That's hardly normal.

Being a military hero does not preclude you from being a good politican either, and doesn't mean you don't have policy advisors at your side.

Second, Vazgen "Sargsyan's term as Minister of Defence was marked by cooperation with Russia and Greece.[39][40] Sargsyan had "close connections" with the Russian military elite, especially Defense Minister Pavel Grachev.[41] According to the Jamestown Foundation, he pursued a military diplomacy with Greece, Cyprus, Syria, Iran and Bulgaria for a pro-Russian alliance."

I'm not sure what sort of hearsay from the streets you heard, but the only people are hated Vazgen were cowards who didn't want to send their kids off to the army, and real chobans devoid of any national ideology. There isn't a political force that would ever seriously contemplate going through with the goble plan of swapping meghri for latchin. That is absurd. First of all, even if Armenian leaders agreed, IRAN first and foremost wouldn't NEVER allow it. It is not serious.

As a point in case, during the administration of Levon Ter Petrosyan, Turkey asked Armenia to re-confirm the Treaties of Moscow and Kars, which Levon, THAT'S LEVON, turned down.

Third, if Russia orchestrated the oct 27 acts, the fact remains, and still clearly visible today, that it didn't shift Armenia away from the west. On the contrary, relations with nato increased, western presence inside Armenia increased. Like I said, Russia was preoccupied with war in Chechnya. Getting a hardliner opposed to any concessions out of the picture would hardly be a strike against the Goble Plan.

Anonymous, I am glad to see that Vazgen has become an legendary hero in death (at least for petty minds). Please, don't be upset at what I said for it's a natural human trait to bestow larger-than-life attributes to those who are no longer with us. However, rest assured that had Vazgen remained alive he would have been hated by the likes of you today for being just another fat bellied oligarch. So, sorry to ruin your fedayee fantasy. Anyway, it's obvious you are here only to get into a pissing contest with me. Not going to happen. I told you the fundamental facts: The Goble Plan was on the verge of being adopted by official Yerevan in late 1999; the parliamentary assassinations put an abrupt end to the madness; the killings also gave power to the pro-Russian Karabakh clan in Armenia: So, believe whatever makes you happy. I am not here to baby sit you.